Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. PIKE: I beg to present to the House a humble Petition from 11,385 electors in the Parliamentary Borough of Attercliffe:
To the Honourable Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled:
Whereas the excessive taxation affecting the cost of our entertainments denies us the freedom of cheap entertainments, we your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will institute an immediate inquiry into the matters alleged in this our petition.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Bath and Bury and District Joint Water Board) Bill,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the city of Bath and the district of the Bury and District Joint Water Board," presented by Sir Hilton Young; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMS TRAFFIC.

Mr. MANDER: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now able to state, in connection with the Government's negotiations for an arms embargo on both aggressor and victim or on aggressor alone, the respective positions taken up by the various countries consulted?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 21st March.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not the fact that the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate have unanimously asked for an embargo on the aggressor alone?

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made towards an international agreement on the subject of an armaments embargo against Japan?

Mr. EDEN: The Advisory Committee of the League of Nations which was set up to follow the developments of the Sino-Japanese dispute decided to set up a sub-committee to examine the problem of the export of arms in relation to the present conditions in the Far East. I understand that the Advisory Committee met again at Geneva yesterday. I am informed that at this meeting attention was drawn to the fact that inquiries were already under way in connection with disputes in another part of the world in the course of which specific questions of principle and of execution have been put before the Governments. It was agreed that the members of the committee should consult their Governments on these questions in order that the subcommittee might be in possession of the essential facts as soon as possible.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Can the Under-Secretary say when a decision is expected from this Committee; or when any report is expected?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member must not expect me to tell him what an international Committee will do.

Mr. DAVIES: May we take it for granted that the Government will bear in mind the changed conditions consequent upon the notice given by Japan to leave the League of Nations?

Mr. MANDER: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what orders were notified for munitions of war from Japan during the recent embargo and since; from what date the embargo ceased to operate; and whether any undertaking has been given by the Government to assist those supplying arms to Japan to obtain payment?

Lieut.-Colonel JOHN COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): As regards the first part of the question, I would refer to the reply given to a similar question put by the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) on March 8th; the date asked for in the second part is March 13th; the answer to the last part is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

RESEARCH DEPARTMENT.

Mr. WISE: 4.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any economies were effected in the last year as a result of recommendations by die Research Department of the Admiralty; and by how much such economies exceeded the whole cost of maintaining the Department?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell): The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, the function of the Scientific Research Department is to increase the efficiency of naval material. The extension of its life, thereby reducing its cost, is one way of increasing efficiency which is always kept in view. But there are many other ways, for instance ensuring a higher standard of performance, greater safety in handling, and so on, which may be of even greater importance, but which cannot be assessed in precise monetary teems or fairly related to any particular year.

PERSONAL (INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 3.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the latest figures of the personnel on the active lists of the American, Japanese, Italian, and British navies; and what percentage increase or decrease such figures show on the personnel of these navies at the commencement of 1914?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: The approximate numbers for 1932–33, with the increase or decrease per cent. as compared with 1914, are as follow:

U.S.A.—107,300, 60 per cent. increase.
Japan—88,000, 74 per cent. increase.
Italy—53,000, 32 per cent. increase.
British Commonwealth—98,100, 35 per cent. decrease.

In view of differences of organisation as between the several navies concerned,
these numbers are not strictly comparable.

Captain MACDONALD: Will these figures be borne in mind on the Continent?

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can give figures showing the total active service naval personnel of the British Commonwealth of Nations, United States of North America, France, Italy and Japan, in 1914, 1918 and 1932, respectively?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL: With my hon. Friend's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The approximate figures are as follow:—


—
1914.
1918.
1932–33.


U.S.A.
67,258
503,792
107,300


Japan
50,645
64,122
88,000*


France
69,585
80,000
63,800†


Italy
40,023
127,401
53,000


British Commonwealth of Nations.
152,000
427,000
98,100


* Number as given to League of Nations for July, 1931.


† Includes about 5,590 air personnel paid by Air Ministry.

The figures for the Members of the British Commonwealth of Nations are for July-1st August, 1914, for 11th November, 1918, and for 1st January, 1932. These figures indicate in a broad way only the variations in personnel allowed for under the Naval Estimates. They are, however, not strictly comparable owing to differences and changes in the organisations of the various Services.

Oral Answers to Questions — EAST AFRICA (LOCUST PLAGUES).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can make any statement as to the progress which it is hoped to make during 1933 in connection with the abolition of locust plagues from the East African dependencies?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): Experiments are being conducted in this
country into the possibilities of locust control by means of subjecting the flying swarms to a cloud of poisonous material discharged from an aeroplane. An account of the experimental programme will be found in the Fifth Report, which I understand will shortly be published, of the Committee on Locust Control of the Economic Advisory Council. The programme is being carried out under the auspices of that Committee, by means of a grant from the Colonial Development Fund, and with the co-operation of the Government of Kenya. It is too early to predict whether the progress of the experiments will be such as to permit of practical measures in East Africa during 1933.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAROTSELAND.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many visits have been made to Barotseland by successive chief administrators or Governors of Northern Rhodesia during the last 15 years; and whether these visits were made as part of the Governor's official duties?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am addressing an inquiry to the present Governor and will communicate with the hon. Member on receipt of his reply.

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: At the same time will the right hon. Gentleman inquire how many visits the Paramount Chief has paid to Barotseland?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If it interests the hon. Member I can inquire, but I do not know whether I should get an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

OTTAWA AGREEMENTS.

Sir JOHN HASLAM: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which Colonies under his jurisdiction besides Ceylon have failed to implement the Ottawa Agreements; and what further steps he proposes to take to bring them into line with the rest of the Empire?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The only other Colonies besides Ceylon are the Cayman Islands, where the matter is still under consideration, and Malta.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many departures there have been by this country from the Ottawa Agreements?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: None, that I am aware of.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: May I ask how long this is going to be under consideration?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The Cayman Islands are not very large, but I think their Assembly meets once a year, and I believe it expresses its opinion by acclamation.

Sir J. HASLAM: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question? What further steps does he propose to take?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That question refers to Ceylon, and my hon. Friend will be aware of the telegram which, with the approval of my colleagues, I sent to the Governor to communicate to Ministers in Ceylon. That communication stated that His Majesty's Government here must be free when the time came to review the whole question of Ceylonese preference.

BANKRUPTCIES.

Major NATHAN: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total number of insolvencies for each of the years to the 28th February, 1931, 29th February, 1932, and 28th February, 1933, so far as evidenced by the aggregate number during each of those periods of the orders for the compulsory winding-up of companies, resolutions for the voluntary winding-up of companies on the grounds of inability to meet liabilities, receiving orders made in bankruptcy, and deeds of arrangements and deeds of composition?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I regret that it has not been possible within the time available to obtain the information desired by the hon. and gallant Member, but I will send him the particulars as soon as possible.

Major NATHAN: Will my hon. Friend publish that information in due course from the reports?

Dr. BURGIN: If they are not too long that shall be done.

EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what the total cost of the Empire Marketing Board has been to the British taxpayer since its inception; and whether the Dominions have made any money grants or other contributions?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): The total expenditure from the Empire Marketing Fund from its inception in 1926 up to the 31st March, 1933, will be approximately £3,250,000. No contributions have been made by Dominion Governments towards this expenditure, but in most cases where grants have been made by the Board for research work in the Dominions, the respective Governments have contributed to the cost of the research.

FALSTER BRIDGE CONTRACT.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 36.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is now in a position to make any statement with regard to the arrangements for raising a loan in this country to finance the construction of the Danish Falster bridge?

Imports of Cotton Piece Goods into Ceylon from the United Kingdom and Japan for the month of January, 1933.


Cotton Piece Goods.
Quantity in Yards.
Value in Rupees.


(a)
Bleached:







United Kingdom
…
…
277,291
92,311



Japan
…
…
782,250
84,913


(b)
Dyed:







United Kingdom
…
…
113,310
40,061



Japan
…
…
1,313,402
190,746


(c)
Gray:







United Kingdom
…
…
40,983
10,273



Japan
…
…
138,650
22,210


(d)
Printed:







United Kingdom
…
…
269,837
88,037



Japan
…
…
493,409
59,381


(e)
Muslin:







United Kingdom
…
…
Nil
Nil



Japan
…
…
Nil
Nil


(f)
Other:







United Kingdom
…
…
632
825



Japan
…
…
Nil
Nil



Totals:







United Kingdom
…
…
702,053
231,507



Japan
…
…
2,687,701
357,250

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I understand that discussions are proceeding satisfactorily, but my right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. HALL-CAINE.: Will my hon. Friend give an indication as to when he will be able to give an answer to the question?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: When the discussions, which, as I have said, are proceeding satisfactorily, are concluded. I cannot say when that will be.

CEYLON.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the imports into Ceylon of cotton piece-goods from Great Britain and Japan, respectively, from the beginning of the year to the latest available date; and if he will give comparable figures for the years 1913 and 1924?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: As the answer contains a long table of figures, with my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate these in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:

Imports of Cotton Piece Goods into Ceylon from the United Kingdom and Japan for the years* 1913 and 1924.


Cotton Piece Goods.
1913.
1924.


Quantity in Yards.
Value in Rupees.
Quantity in Yards.
Value in Rupees.


(a)
Bleached:









United Kingdom
…
…
15,019,143
3,273,393
8,790,720
4,601,538



Japan
…
…
5,940
1,888
60,450
17,406


(b)
Dyed:









United Kingdom
…
…
11,628,439
2,154,039
3,835,097
2,739,827



Japan
…
…
46,142
14,183
2,223,672
891,879


(c)
Gray:









United Kingdom
…
…
4,206,390
802,307
2,412,682
1,065,062



Japan
…
…
Nil
Nil
614,800
281,573


(d)
Printed:









United Kingdom
…
…
8,450,204
1,704,286
5,392,774
2,907,654



Japan
…
…
1,200
255
75,546
46,251


(e)
Muslin:









United Kingdom
…
…
112,821
23,472
36,183
16,543



Japan
…
…
30
10
Nil
Nil


(f)
Other:









United Kingdom
…
…
333,180
621,753
229,189
196,158



Japan
…
…
13,238
107,023
95,414
77,291



Totals:









United Kingdom
…
…
39,750,177
8,579,250
20,696,645
11,526,782



Japan
…
…
66,550
123,359
3,069,882
1,314,400


* Separate figures for January, 1913 and January, 1924 are not available.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the exports of tea from Ceylon to countries other than Great Britain for the last available yearly period?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: During the year ended 31st December, 1932, the exports of tea from Ceylon to countries other than Great Britain were 80,601,298 lbs. valued at £2,557,169, out of a total export of 252,823,755 lbs., valued at £8,076,911.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the dissimilarity between that figure and the exports of tea from Ceylon to Great Britain?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Yes.

Captain ELLISTON: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has yet received a reply from the legislature of Ceylon to his recent telegram protesting against the denial of preferences for British cotton goods; and, if so, what is the nature of that reply?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have received no information of any action by
the Ceylon State Council consequent upon my telegram to the Governor.

Captain ELLISTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman press for an early reply to his telegram, and also point out that the Lancashire cotton industry is entitled to some preferential treatment in view of the advantage secured by Ceylon?

Sir P. CUNLIFF-LISTER: In my view the only satisfactory answer to the telegram would be the grant of preference.

Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring a little pressure to bear on Ceylon to that effect?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have already indicated that Ceylon has been informed that it will be for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not very far ahead, to consider what action should be taken.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does not this show the disadvantage of giving rather fancy constitutions to Colonies and dependencies?

HOSIERY IMPORTS.

Mr. LYONS: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that certain foreign countries are allowing money from public funds to meet the costs of production of stockings or other hosiery exported from those countries to this country; and whether, in view of the harm done to the Leicester and other manufacturers, rendering the present duties ineffective, he will say what steps he proposes to take in the interests of British trade and employment?

Dr. BURGIN: I have no information which would suggest that foreign countries are using public funds in the manner suggested by my hon. Friend. The second part does not therefore arise.

Mr. LYONS: In view of what is considered by the trade to be a matter of great urgency in the interests of their own employment, will the Board of Trade deal with the matter forthwith if strong representations are made?

Dr. BURGIN: We do little else but consider representations.

Mr. LYONS: In this case will my hon. Friend promise something more than consideration

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Sir J. HASLAM: 39.
asked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to ensure that only those parts of the Empire which have put, or propose to put, into operation the policy agreed upon at Ottawa shall have the benefits of Imperial preference within these islands?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The general policy underlying the Ottawa Agreements involved a recognition that benefits could not be claimed without a reasonable return, unless countries are precluded from granting preference. That policy will continue to govern our action, but I would rather not pledge myself as to methods of applying it.

Sir J. HASLAM: Will the Prime Minister draw the attention of the delinquent States or State to the intolerable situation and say that it cannot possibly continue? I think the right hon. Gentleman knows the Colony to which I refer.

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend will communicate with the Board
of Trade, he will find how the matter stands.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many Dominions or Colonies have negotiated voluntary agreements outside the settled terms of the Ottawa Agreements?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot carry that in my head.

Sir W. BRASS: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the Government of Ceylon the answer which he has given?

Sir P. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some Dominions have taken away part of our preference by artificially depreciating the exchange—more than robbing this country of any preference?

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION.

TRANS-ATLANTIC AIR ROUTE.

Rear-Admiral SUETER: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that Pan-American Airways is starting the first lap of the Atlantic air route from New York to Bermuda this year; and what encouragement is being given to the civil aviation of this country to co-operate with the Americans in starting this trans-Atlantic air route?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am aware that Pan-American Airways are considering the opening of a service from New York to Bermuda. It is understood that their intention is to operate this service, if possible, in collaboration with Imperial Airways. His Majesty's Government are keeping a close watch on developments in conjunction with Imperial Airways.

ROYAL AIR FORCE PILOTS.

Sir W. BRASS: 14.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether serving officers of the Royal Air Force when on leave are given permission to pilot civil aircraft for profit; and, if so, under what conditions these permissions are given and in how many cases they have been granted during 1931 and 1932, respectively?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part therefore does not arise.

IMPERIAL AIRWAYS LINER (DISASTER).

Mr. SPEAKER: I have received two Private Notice Questions on the same subject, one from the hon. and gallant Member for St. Marylebone (Captain Cunningham-Reid) and another from the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Captain Balfour).

Captain CUNNINGHAM-REID (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make any statement regarding the disaster to the Imperial Airways liner "City of Liverpool"?

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR (by Private Notice): asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air if he can give the House any further information about the disaster to the Imperial Airways liner "City of Liverpool"; and whether the Secretary of State for Air intends to order the holding of a public inquiry into the causes of the accident at the earliest possible date?

Sir P. SASSOON: I regret that at this stage I can add little to the information which has already been published in the Press. The aircraft appears to have caught fire in the air and all the occupants, namely, 12 passengers and three members of the crew, lost their lives. The Inspector of Accidents and an assistant left England by air this morning for the scene of the accident, and until my Noble Friend has received a preliminary report from them it is not possible to make any further statement. Meantime, reports such as that the fire started in one of the engines should be treated with the greatest reserve.
The House may wish to know that since the last accident attended by loss of life, nearly 2½ years ago, Imperial Airways have flown over four million miles and carried over 99,000 passengers, a record of safety in which the company may take legitimate pride. The type of machine involved in this accident is one which has been in constant use for six years, and this is the first serious accident in the course of over two million miles flown by this type on regular service. I am glad to be able to say that public confidence has rightly refused to be shaken by this accident, and the company's early service to Paris this morning was filled up to capacity, with a wait-
ing list of passengers anxious to travel had space been available for them.
As regards an inquiry, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Thanet (Captain Balfour) that under the approved international procedure the responsibility for investigation rests with the country in which the accident occurs, though it is customary to associate with the inquiry technical representatives of the country to which the aircraft belongs. I entertain no doubt that in the present case the responsible Belgian authorities will work in the closest and most cordial co-operation with the British experts whom, as above stated, my Noble Friend has despatched to the scene of the accident. Pending the receipt of further first-hand information as to the progress of the inquiry in Belgium and the form that inquiry will take, my Noble Friend thinks any decision as to the necessity or otherwise for a public inquiry in this country would be altogether premature. I take this opportunity of conveying to the relatives of those killed my Noble Friend's and my own profound sympathy in the loss which they have sustained in such tragic circumstances.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION (LIVERPOOL STREET-ILFORD).

Major NATHAN: 17.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can state the position as to the projected electric railway from Liverpool Street via Bethnal Green to Ilford and beyond?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The railway company concerned have informed me that they have schemes of London suburban electrification under consideration and that when the London Passenger Transport Bill has become law they will be prepared to submit definite proposals to the Standing Joint Committee of the Transport Board and the railway companies which the Bill proposes to set up.

FOOTPATHS.

Mr. GUY: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ensure that in all cases where a grant is made from the Road Fund to a highway authority for the widening of a road no existing footpath shall be removed unless a new footpath is provided?

Mr. STANLEY: In the case of schemes assisted by grants from the Road Fund, it is the practice of my Department to require that where road widenings involve the removal of footpaths suitable alternative footpaths shall be provided.

Mr. SMITHERS: In any road widening, will my hon. Friend take into consideration accommodation for horses?

Mr. STANLEY: I understand that horses generally use the roads.

Mr. SMITHERS: Has my hon. Friend ever tried to ride a horse on one of these new macadamised roads?

CHELMSFORD-ROMFORD OMNIBUS FARES.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir VIVIAN HENDERSON: 19 and 20.
asked the Minister of Transport (1) if he will state on what grounds the eastern traffic commissioners imposed a minimum fare of sixpence on Messrs. Hillman's omnibus services between Chelmsford, Brentwood, and Romford as from the 3rd April; and on what grounds this decision was upheld on appeal;
(2) if he will state what steps he, or the eastern traffic commissioners, are taking to ensure that an adequate service of short-stage motor coaches, at fares below sixpence, is available to the public on and after the 3rd April between Chelmsford and the intervening villages to Brentwood and Romford?

Mr. STANLEY: The grounds on which the traffic commissioners reached their decision were set out in their observations on Messrs. Hillman's appeal and were circulated to the parties concerned. I am forwarding a copy of these observations to my hon. and gallant Friend. My predecessor, after careful inquiry into the appeal, saw no sufficient reason for reversing their decision. In announcing his decision he expressed the opinion as regards these services that
passengers wishing to travel short distances only should be carried by regular short-stage services and that if any additional facilities are required for such passengers they should be provided by the strengthening of those services.
The commissioners have recently considered applications for the strengthening of the short-stage services between Chelmsford, Brentwood and Romford, and gave a preliminary decision in the matter on 24th March. On the same day
they informed the parties concerned that they would not enforce compliance with the condition as to minimum fares on Messrs. Hillman's services until it had been found possible to commence additional short-stage services on the lines set out in that preliminary decision.

Mr. HUTCHISON: Is the Minister aware that the majority of people who use these omnibuses are small wage earners and working people who can ill afford any increase of their fares, and that there is strong local feeling that the objections put forward both by the public and by the local councils have not been sufficiently considered?

Mr. STANLEY: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the increase of fares in this particular service will not come into force until the Commissioners are satisfied that alternative services have been provided.

TOLL ROADS AND BRIDGES.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 15.
asked the Minister of Transport what is the estimated total capital value of the remaining toll roads and bridges in Great Britain; and whether he will consider taking steps to raise a loan for their purchase and ultimate freeing, the said loan to be liquidated by the revenue of the tolls purchased over a limited number of years?

Mr. STANLEY: No information is available on the point raised in the first part of the question. Apart from any other consideration, I have no power to give effect to my hon. Friend's suggestion. The provisions under which local authorities are empowered to take over privately owned toll roads and bridges are contained in Section 53 of the Road Traffic Act.

AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC SIGNALS.

Mr. ATTLEE (for Mr. PARKINSON): 16.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of points that are now worked by automatic traffic signals in London?

Mr. STANLEY: Ninety-four street intersections in the Metropolitan Police District and in the City of London are now controlled by traffic light signals. Arrangements have been completed or are in progress for the introduction of signals at a large number of other junctions.

Viscountess ASTOR: If the hon. Gentleman is reducing the number of men police, will he consider increasing the number of women police in view of the fact that crimes against children are growing all over the country?

Mr. STANLEY: I am glad to be able to announce that that is a question which ought to be addressed to another Department.

Mr. ATTLEE (for Mr. PARKINSON): 33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police have been taken off traffic duty since the introduction of automatic traffic signals?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for HOME AFFAIRS (Mr. Douglas Hacking): In England and Wales the installation of traffic light signals has up to the present released 553 constables from traffic duty.

Viscountess ASTOR: If the hon. Gentleman has been able to reduce the number of men police, will he consider increasing the number of women police, since crimes against children are growing?

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRESSED AREAS (RATE BURDEN).

Mr. JOHN MORRIS: 23.
asked the Minister of Health if he can now inform the House of the extent of the financial assistance the Government will afford to the depressed areas in England and Wales for the alleviation of the heavy Poor Law rate burden borne by these areas?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): My right hon. Friend saw yesterday, with the Minister of Labour, a deputation from a number of local authorities on this subject, and the representations which were made are receiving careful consideration.

Mr. MORRIS: Are we to assume that assistance will be given by the Government to these depressed areas?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When will the Government make a pronouncement on the representations they received yesterday?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The matter is urgent, and everything is being done to expedite a decision.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May we expect a statement from the Minister before the Easter Adjournment?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: That is our expectation, but I do not want to disappoint hopes.

Mr. THORNE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that at the meeting yesterday, or the day before, the Minister said that a statement would be made to the House before the Adjournment?

Oral Answers to Questions — REGISTRATION (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 24.
asked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the transfer of functions under the Registration Acts provided for by Part II, Clauses 21 to 28, of the Local Government Act, 1929, are working smoothly in practice; and if the relations between the Registrar-General and the local authorities concerned have been harmonious?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Yes, Sir, these provisions are, my right hon. Friend believes, working smoothly and with a full measure of co-operation between the Registrar-General and the local authorities concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ACCUSED ALIENS (COUNSEL).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 32.
asked the Attorney - General whether, when an accused person belongs to a specified non-British nationality, it is the practice to allow him to be represented in court by counsel of that nationality?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): An accused person who is an alien may be represented in Court by Counsel of his own nationality provided that such counsel has been called to the Bar by one of the Inns of Court.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Government of such a national in the habit of demanding the acquittal of the accused at the trial?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to other Governments?

Mr. WILLIAMS: No, our own.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Certainly not.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (AIR PARCEL RATES).

Major ASTOR: 28.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider -the possibility of reducing the present charges for air parcels sent to India, East Africa, and South Africa in order to facilitate the transmission of urgent consignments of goods, samples, and copy for the Press bearing an Imperial interest?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Kingsley Wood): I have now had an opportunity of examining the results of the experimental period during which these air parcel services have been in operation, and I am glad to be able to announce that, as from 10th April, the present 1 lb. scale will be replaced by a ½ lb. scale, and the rates will in consequence be 2s. 3d. a ½ lb. to the Sudan, 3s. a ½ lb. to India and East Africa, and 3s. 6d. ½ a lb. to the Rhodesias and South Africa.

Oral Answers to Questions — CRANE ACCIDENT, EUSTON.

Mr. THORNE: 35.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report of the crane accident which occurred at Seymour Street, Euston, on 24th March; and what action he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. HACKING: It appears on investigation that this accident was due to an error of judgment on the part of the crane driver, who drove the crane too far along the rails. I am advised that stops were provided on the rails and that the mechanism of the crane appeared to be in good order. In these circumstances it would appear that there is no further action which my right hon. Friend can usefully take in the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 37.
asked the Prime Minister if he is able to make any further statement with regard to his negotiations for disarmament, treaty revision and a settled peace?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the very full statement made on behalf of the Government in the course of the Debate on Thursday last, and by the Foreign Secretary in answer
to a Private Notice question yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (BOUNDARY).

Mr. LINDSAY (for Lord APSLEY): 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether any proposal was put forward during his visit to Italy for the further rectification of the boundary between Italian Somaliland and British Kenya; and, if so, if he will state the nature of the suggestion and the British reply thereto?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL (for Mr. DAGGAR): 29 and 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will state (1) the output of coal in Great Britain; the quantity exported; the f.o.b. prices for each year from 1920 to 1932, inclusive; and similar statistics for South Wales;
(2) The Average weekly wage paid in the mining industry in Great Britain for each year from 1920 to 1932, inclusive?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the replies to these questions involve long statistical statements, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: If my hon. Friend is preparing a table of statistics will he consider the inclusion of figures covering every other individual district as well?

Mr. BROWN: I could not undertake to do that. The table for which I am asked now would cover 24 different lines.

Mr. GRENFELL: Does not the answer to the questions cover all districts?

Mr. BROWN: One part of the question concerns Great Britain and another part, South Wales and Monmouthshire. It is that to which the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Nicholson) refers.

Following are the statements:


Year.
Great Britain.
South Wales and Monmouthshire.


Output of Coal.
Quantity of Coal Exported.
Average Declared Value per ton f.o.b.
Output of Coal.
Quantity of Coal Exported.*
Average Declared Value per ton f.o.b.




Thousand
Thousand


Thousand
Thousand






Tons.
Tons.
s.
d.
Tons.
Tons.
s.
d.


1920
…
229,424
24,932
79
11
46,249
15,470
79
7


1921
…
163,163
24,661
34
10
30,572
12,247
37
5


1922
…
249,607
64,198
22
7
50,325
25,634
24
7


1923
…
276,001
79,459
25
2
54,252
30,130
26
3


1924
…
267,118
61,651
23
5
51,085
25,682
25
4


1925
…
243,176
50,817
19
10
44,630
21,454
23
3


1926
…
126,279
20,596
18
7
20,273
9,295
20
10


1927
…
251,232
51,149
17
10
46,256
22,592
20
2


1928
…
237,472
50,051
15
7
43,312
21,415
17
9


1929
…
257,907
60,267
16
2
48,150
24,716
18
4


1930
…
243,882
54,874
16
8
45,108
23,299
19
1


1931
…
219,459
42,750
16
3
37,085
18,004
19
0


1932
…
208,733†
38,899
16
3
34,874†
16,504
19
7


* From Bristol Channel Ports.


† Provisional figures.


NOTE.—Exports to the Irish Free State are included from 1st April, 1923.

The average weekly cash earnings of all workers employed in the coal-mining industry in Great Britain during the years 1920 to 1932, excluding periods affected by national disputes, were as follows:



£
s.
d.

£
s.
d.


1920 (excluding October to December).*
4
6
11
1926 (excluding May to December)
2
13
9






1927
2
7
2


1921 (excluding April to June)
3
11
7
1928
2
3
9


1922
2
8
1
1929
2
5
6


1923
2
11
8
1930
2
3
10


1924
2
13
2
1931
2
2
11


1925
2
10
8
1932
2
2
1


* The national dispute in 1920 lasted three weeks, but as quarterly returns only are available, the period October to December has been excluded.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chester and Lancaster) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Eton Joint Hospital District) Bill,

Preston Corporation Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Assurance Companies (Winding up) Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Solicitors Bill): Mr. Purbrick; and had appointed in substitution: Major Llewellin.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [27th March].
That, before Parliament is asked to take a decision upon the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268, it is expedient that a Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, be appointed to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals in the said Command Paper."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Question again proposed.

3.18 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Many a time I have sat in the jungle in Central India watching a bait, in the form of a bullock or calf tied to a tree, awaiting the arrival of the lord of the forest, and put there as a trap to entice him to his doom. On this occasion, I have exactly the same feelings as those of the miserable animal whom I have so often looked upon in that position, and, if I compare myself to that bait, I may compare my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to the tiger. I hope that hon. Members and the right hon. Gentleman himself will remember, however, that there is waiting for the tiger a pair of lynx eyes and a sure and safe rifle to ensure his ultimate fate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the difficulty which he had in keeping two points of view in consideration, and I have exactly the same difficulty on this occasion when I reflect that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who is to speak on behalf of the official Opposition, is also prowling in the neighbourhood. In fact, I am in between those two noble mammals. If I restrict myself solely to facts and not to fancies in the few remarks that I have to make, it will be because, in the very near future, we shall have so much fancy coming from the bench on my right.
The Government on this important occasion have adopted a procedure which is very often adopted with the best pieces of British mechanism. I believe it is a fact that when any Rolls-Royce car is made, it is the habit to run over
the machinery in the shop and then to run it on the road before it is handed over. When we are dealing with one of the most complicated pieces of constitutional machinery that this country has invented, we propose to adopt exactly the same procedure as is adopted with the best types of British mechanism, and we propose to send these proposals to a Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament, in order that they may be severely and closely examined, so that when we hand over this conveyance to the peoples of India it may carry the millions confided to its care in the same way as that piece of British mechanism to which I have referred.
The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), speaking on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition, asked us whether our policy involved the consideration of any substantial changes in the Committee or whether it would consist only of adjustment of details. I think the best course that I can take in reply to that question is to refer the hon. Gentleman to the Motion which I am supporting this afternoon. He will see that the terms are, as have already been read by you, Sir, from the Chair:
That a Joint Select Committee…be appointed to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals in the said Command Paper.
I think that no words of mine can improve upon the wording of that Motion. We have heard from both benches the further criticism that these proposals have no clause in them which implies that the safeguards, for example, are only for a transitional period. I would answer that Parliament on this occasion has as large and important a responsibility as it has ever had upon any question. We have, in fact, a serious enough decision to take already, and it is true that it is our intention that any Amendment of this Act of Parliament should be by a further Act of Parliament, except in so far as any Amendment to the Constitution could be effected by an Amendment to the Instruments of Instructions. These Instruments, if amended, I would remind hon. Members, must be submitted to both Houses of Parliament. The fact, therefore, is that Parliament, which has proposed the scheme, must take the responsibility and will have the responsibility for any alteration in the scheme, which I think is a fair constitutional procedure.
Further, when we consider the stability that it is necessary to give for the many diverse elements in India, I think we shall agree that this is the wiser and the better course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Cadogan) raised a question about the future recruitment of the Services. The decision, as announced in the White Paper, that this matter will be open for consideration after five years in no way prejudges the issue of the future recruitment of the Services, and in this matter, as in the matter to which I have just referred, the ultimate authority will be in the hands of those of us in Parliament who have fashioned this scheme. A further criticism that has been put forward by hon. Members opposite is that we should have seen that the assent of Indians was required for this scheme. We have throughout taken every opportunity of consulting India. We have conducted our procedure in order that in this immense problem we shall have all the advantage of the advice of Indian statesmen on these questions, and I can only say that so carefully have we considered the point of view of India that we have even come up against criticism from the other side on this very point. I would remind hon. Members that it is our intention, as the words of this Motion imply, to empower the Joint Select Committee to call into consultation representative Indians; and I would reply to the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hales), who asked us to take every opportunity of consulting Indian opinion, that we realise the value of his services in this connection, and that we have not lost that point from our minds.
These are mostly questions of procedure, and I would like now to consider various points which have arisen in the Debate as being points in the proposals and as to whether the proposals are worthy to send to a Joint Select Committee. My hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches have objected to the severity of the financial and economic pre-requisites to federation which are included in the pages of the White Paper. I would only remind them that these find a place in the Financial Safeguards Committee's report to the Round Table Conference, and I would wish to say, with all responsibility, that we cannot contemplate setting up new Governments in our scheme unless they are endowed with
adequate resources to ensure solvency. It is a primary consideration which, I feel sure, has been realised by bon. Members opposite.
On the question of the financial safeguards themselves, as apart from the financial and economic pre-requisites to federation, I would remind hon. Members opposite that on the 12th March, 1931, the Secretary of State in the Labour Government announced that
the safeguards referred to by the Federal Structure Committee, including the powers of the Governor-General in relation to currency legislation, are essential and cannot be abated if we are to set up a new Constitution with success."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1931; col. 1432, Vol. 249.]
Further, there must be many investors, British and Indian, who on the inception of great constitutional changes demand that the stake they have in the stability of India should be safeguarded. It is not necessary for me to discuss in detail the exact nature and extent of those safeguards, but it is sufficient for me to state that their objective is the maintenance of the credit and stability of the Federation and that the provisions enumerated in the White Paper are designed to provide re-assurance, if that should be needed, that the future Indian Ministry shall be able to maintain a high credit in the financial markets of the world. It is our confident hope that the future Indian Ministry will jealously protect the credit of the Federation, and we are sure that, like other Governments, the new Indian Government will recognise its vital interest in so doing.
Besides these criticisms of financial matters, we have heard considerable criticisms of our proposals for representation in the Legislatures, and I refer in particular to the question of the franchise. I remember that before I went to India on the Franchise Committee I was profoundly affected by a speech by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), in which he advised us to build up the future representation of India on the old system of the Panchayats, and I went to India inspired by his remarks. Unfortunately, on our arrival in India we discovered that these village organisations, indigenous as they are to India and to her history, have lapsed at the present time. But as the hon. Member for North
Hammersmith (Miss Pickford) remarked, there are at present only 12,000 Panchayats out of 458,000 villages in India, and these Panchayats are at present very largely kept in being with the help of British administrators. We inquired very closely into the possibility of using these Panchayats or village boards as the basis of a system of indirect election, and it was only after mature consideration that we were finally convinced that the system of election in the very few Panchayats that exist among the myriads of India's villages did not form a suitable basis of election or of a system of indirect election. This question of the relative merits of indirect and direct election is one which will surely form one of the most valuable points for the consideration of the Joint Select Committee. I will say no more on this point, except that those of us who went there were convinced that direct election was the better system.
We have further been criticised because it is said that, without paying due regard to those many millions of agriculturists who form the majority of India's population, we are willing to hand over to a small urban majority and to a number of lawyer politicians in particular the whole Government of India. When you reflect on the basic nature of the franchise which we have suggested you will see that that lack of balance which existed in the Franchise Report of the Southborough Committee between urban and rural interests has been readjusted in our recommendations and accepted in this White Paper. It may confidently be said that the franchise is based, as it should be, on an equal distribution between the ryots and the small cultivators, who under our proposals will form the backbone; and the urban interests which previously predominated in the franchise. It has been a proud boast of our Imperial policy that we have never neglected to build up our Imperial structure upon a happy and contented peasantry. I have often been told that the finest moment in our Imperial history was when Cromer built up the constitution which he did in Egypt on the basis of a contented fellaheen. In this case, we have tried to see that the representation in the Legislatures shall be based upon prosperous and contented cultivators.
We have been very much criticised over the women's franchise. That is a point with which I should like to deal at some length. I think that those who have criticised us so much in this House for not further increasing the women's franchise are not necessarily doing the women of India a good turn by the criticisms that they make. If you consider the fact, you will find that the opportunities for women have been enormously increased by our proposals. We propose that there shall be nine seats for women in the Central Assembly. It is the first time that women have had representation in the Central Assembly of India. It has been said that the proportion of men and women voters has not been improved, but I would remind the House that the numbers of the women electorate have been increased from 55,000 to 365,000 at the centre.

Viscountess ASTOR: The White Paper says that there will be no increase in the women voters for the Federal Assembly.

Mr. BUTLER: I am glad to have given the Noble Lady an opportunity of making a point on which I know she feels keenly, but the position is, as the White Paper states, that the proportion of men to women voters is not increased. I have said, however, that the actual number of voters has been increased by seven times. Further, in reply to the apprehensions of the Noble Lady, I would say that in the White Paper we have purposely put a phrase which shows that we realise the importance of this point and hope that it will be further considered by the Joint Select Committee. In the Provinces for the first time there are to be 41 seats reserved for woman and the actual extent of the franchise has been increased to just over 6,000,000 for women alone. I think, therefore, that it is a slight exaggeration to say that opportunities are not being given to the women under our new franchise. If I may borrow an offensively male term in this connection, I would ask the women of India to set about "manning" the seats in the Provincial Legislatures and in the Centre. If they will do that they will find that they are having increased facilities in the government of India.
The hon. Member for North Hammersmith referred to the dropping of the literacy qualification. In this we have followed the idiosyncrasies of each indi-
vidual province, and where the administrative machine of a province could manage the literacy qualification, as in Madras, we have approved it. We have based our proposals upon that test. A further point arises here. There has been criticism that the women's vote, especially in regard to wives, should be made on application. There has been opportunities for discussing this point with the authorities in India and the Government at home has had the chance of considering it in detail. Our experience has gone to show that it would put too great a burden on the administrative machine, and would make it too responsible a, task to ask the administrative machine in India to put all the wives on the roll, in fact, we have found that social questions of very great severity would arise and that many of the men voters would find it extremely unpleasant, and in fact repugnant, if we asked for the names of their wives at all. In particular, I would remind the House that the choice of the wife is always a very difficult problem. The system of application is an easier way out of the difficulty. I would reassure the Noble Lady on this point, for the White Paper again shows that we appreciate the importance of this point for the women of India. We have inserted a provision which says that if necessary after the first two elections provincial Legislatures shall be allowed to alter this point and to insert women on the roll in the first instance. I hope that that will be some satisfaction to the hon. Member. Like her, I believe that the social position of women in India is one of the most important points that the Indian Constitution has to take into consideration.
Hon. Members opposite asked about the representation of labour. I would reply that labour is to have 10 seats reserved for it in the Central Legislature and seats reserved for it in the Provincial Councils on a basis which is in advance of anything that was given to labour before. In answer to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner), I would only say that my memories of working with him in the interests of a proper representation of labour in India have been fulfilled in the terms of the White Paper. I would like to thank him for the terms of his speech and to say that I hope it will be to his satisfaction that labour in India will start on the right lines.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) raised a point about Europeans, and referred to a dinner in Calcutta a few months ago at which a speech was made by Mr. Carey Morgan. I am able to say that my right hon. Friend has received a letter in the last day or two from one who is entitled to speak on behalf of the European commercial community in India. This letter says that cables have been received since the publication of the White Paper from the Associated Chambers of Commerce, the European Association and the Royalists giving full general support to the proposals outlined in the White Paper subject to amendment of details and to the conditions prevailing at the inauguration of the new constitution. I would also refer to a speech made by Sir Edward Benthall in the Assembly, in which it was said that if India was going to have a federation with responsibility the sooner it was brought about the better. I think that answers the points about Europeans raised by my hon. and gallant Friend.
The hon. Member for Finchley raised one of the most important points in our Debate. He said, with all his knowledge of India, and in language which he alone can command, that it is vital to the future of India that the administration shall not run the risk of breaking down, and he put in the forefront of his remarks the question of irrigation. Irrigation, under the proposals of the Simon Report, and under our proposals in this White Paper, was and is to be a transferred subject. I would like first to answer his point by reference to the manner in which transferred departments have been conducted by Indian Ministers since the inauguration of the reforms 14 years ago. The largest hydro-electric scheme in India at Mandi in the Punjab has been administered by the transferred departments of the Government of that province. The installation at, first has a capacity of 64,220 horse power, and when the third and last stage is completed it will give 161,000 horse power. When it is finished it will be, I think, the largest hydro-electric scheme in the world. The urban population for which it provides numbers one and one-fifth millions, and the water has to be brought in a tunnel nearly three miles long from the mountains to serve the populous districts of the Punjab with
power. I have taken that scheme because I believe it to be an instance of the success with which Indian Ministers have carried out a magnificent and comprehensive undertaking for the people of India. They themselves would be the first to acknowledge that they have done this with the aid of European advice, and I can only hope that this scheme, being as it is an example of many schemes of development in other Provinces all over India in which there has been collaboration between our two races, will be a happy augury for the future administration of the departments reserved at present.
The hon. Member referred in particular to irrigation. We have had a particular problem in connection with, perhaps, the largest scheme of irrigation in India, the Sukkar barrage, owing to the special position of Sind and its financial obligations. Although this scheme will be administered by an Indian Minister we have thought it right that a special responsibility in regard to its administration should be given to the future Governor of Sind. Although we hope the scheme will be administered in exactly the same way as other departments, owing to the special financial conditions in that Province we have made that special provision.
The hon. Member for Finchley also referred to the importance of having a strong central government, and to apprehensions which are undoubtedly in the minds of hon. Members about the need for trying an experiment in the Provinces first. From my contact with Members I find that to be a matter on which they feel very strongly. As we have touched upon the matter of the transferred departments I think it would be wise to pose another dilemma in addition to the dilemma that some Members feel about the difficulty of reconciling responsibility with safeguards. The dilemma is this—if you accept, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening remarks, that the future of India should be built up on the principle of provincial autonomy, or decentralisation, it is surely impossible at the same time to institute a government at the centre which will be interfering with the administration of transferred departments in the Provinces. It
is a dilemma just as important as the previous one. But I sympathise with those hon. Members who feel that in a period of emergency it is important to have a strong hand ready to intervene. Our scheme avoids the dilemma of perpetual interference by the central government in the affairs of an autonomous Province, but it emphatically provides, by the proposals in the White Paper, for the ultimate control of Parliament in any question of emergency arising under the special responsibilities. I therefore maintain that we have faced that dilemma, with success. Take the question of discrimination and the minorities and the difficulty there might be in a central government intervening in the affairs of a minority, whatever its complexion, religious or otherwise. If hon. Members consider our proposals they will find that if the special responsibility of the Governor is invoked, the chain of responsibility will go through the Governor-General in his personal capacity and come ultimately back to the Imperial Parliament, which has been the author of this scheme.
It has astounded me that people should have regarded this question of the setting up of Western institutions in India so entirely through Western eyes. A system of government has grown up during the last 14 years in India which is worthy of study. There are certain Oriental features already developing in the government of India as it has been conducted in the Provinces. For instance, we have put in this White Paper a provision that the Governor can at his discretion preside at the meetings of his Council of Ministers, and there is provision that a member of minority communities may be included in the Cabinet. When hon. Members reflect upon these provisions, which are not similar to our conception of western responsible government, and consider also the future government at the centre in India, which will consist of representatives of the Princes and representatives of British India working together, they will realise that new philosophies will grow up in those conditions, and that in our proposals we are actually combining the best of the East and of the West. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) seemed horrified that the executive should associate itself with patty politics. We maintain that in our proposal it may
be a happy feature of the future of government in the Provinces that the Governor should be in close association with his colleagues in the Ministry, and we wish to encourage it. It is difficult to deal in generalisations when thinking about India, and I think if hon. Members study the details they will find that this Constitution has in it the germs of what will best suit East and West.
In conclusion, I would like to say a word about the States. As regards the Princes, my information is that the general body, including a number of important Princes who were not associated with the recent proceedings in the Chamber, stand by their previous declarations in favour of federation. At the meeting of the Chamber of Princes last week at Delhi, a resolution was passed in favour of the continuance of the discussions with accredited representatives of the Princes for securing the stability and smooth working of the proposed Constitution. The best answer to any criticisms that have been made in this Debate as to the administration of the States themselves, is the example of their form of government.
This plan is not born of expediency or fashioned in haste, or the result of any political compromise. As we have worked upon it, we have come to know and to believe in our hearts that it is the best. It combines in a practical manner the two ideals of British Imperial policy described by Lord Lloyd, responsibility for the welfare of the people, and evolution towards self-government and ultimate political independence. As one of a generation who may have to help to work this plan, I would only say that India has provided this country with some of the most coloured pages in our history. It is not our wish to indulge in perorations or that the future Constitution of India should be bedecked with a profusion of political oratory or enter thus into the arena of party politics. There is a generation of young men in India—Assistant-Commissioners in the Indian Civil Service, District Commissioners of police, young partners in business and officers in the Army, among whom, I may say in passing, I have many friends and some relations—and I cannot believe, as the hot weather is coming on, that they will wish me to indulge in perorations or in any form of political
sob stuff. I believe that what they will want is that we shall go into this plan in a thoroughly businesslike way. That is the suggestion of the Government. We propose that this matter shall be considered in exactly the same manner as the piece of English mechanism that I have already described, and we are confident that young England will work with young India in bringing this plan to some successful conclusion. I think the best way that I can conclude my remarks is by taking a quotation from that master of the English Constitution and of constitutional machinery, Stubbs, in which he says:
We trace the gradual wear of the various parts of the machinery until all roughnesses are smoothed away and all that is superfluous entangling and confusing is got rid of, the balance of forces is adjusted and the power of adaptation to changing circumstances is fully realised.
That, as he says,
is the story of later politics, of a process that is still going on and must go on as the age advances and men are educated into wider views of government, national unity and political responsibility.

3.54 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out from the word "particular," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
to devise a scheme which, by giving effect to the repeated pledges given by His Majesty's Government to raise India to the status of an equal partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations, will command the assent of the people of India, and to this end this House is of opinion that, in order that the representatives to be consulted should include representatives of all sections of Indian political opinion, persons now under arrest in India for political offences involving no moral turpitude should be released.
I feel sure that the whole House will join with me in offering to the hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat our most hearty congratulations on a speech which—if he will allow me to say so—was most felicitously phrased, and was delivered in so agreeable a maner as to commend itself to every Member of the House. He charmed us by the way in which he developed his argument. In drawing the attention of the House to this Amendment, after two days of general discussion on the Motion, I would like to recall to the memory of hon. Members the concluding sentence of the
speech which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) on Monday afternoon. He used these words:
We shall serve on a Joint Select Committee and do our utmost to contribute to a solution of this problem, but we cannot accept this as a solution. We shall work, as far as we can, to see that those who speak for India shall have a chance of putting their points to the Select Committee, but unless great alterations are made in this document I very much fear for the future of peace in India."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1933; col. 732, Vol. 276.]
In addition to that, the House will recall that the hon. Member for Limehouse had read out in the earlier stage of his speech a carefully-prepared declaration on behalf of the party to which we belong. I should like to remind the House of the exact purpose with which this Amendment is presented and the object also of making the declaration which was made on Monday. We are extremely anxious that the frame of mind in which this party approaches this problem shall be clearly apprehended by all Members in all parts of the House.
We do not desire that at some future date when, presumably, the record of the work of the Joint Select Committee is available to the public and the conclusions of that committee are on record, that this party shall be told: "You joined the committee; you must therefore bear responsibility for this, that or the other conclusions of that committee." I wish to make it abundantly clear to this House now, before we enter that Joint Committee, that we enter it with the declaration which we made on Monday, and with the Amendment which I moved to-day, clearly in our minds. It follows from that that I may make this further point: That this party, in accepting entry into that Joint Committee, enter it entirely unpledged and entirely uncommitted, so far as the Government is concerned. There is no obligation upon us, implicit in our joining in this Joint Committee. Our hands therefore must be regarded as being entirely free—with one limitation only. That limitation, as I conceive it, will be this: That the representative or representatives of this party upon that Joint Select Committee will participate in its work with every possible desire to assist the work of the committee, but keeping clearly in mind—
my Amendment draws the attention of the House to this point—not only the repeated declarations of this party concerning India's right to self-government but also, I would remind the Secretary of State for India, the repeated declarations of successive Governments on that matter as well.
Those who represent us on the committee will, I trust, hold up to the Government and those who will sit upon the committee these officials declarations on behalf of successive Governments, as well as our declarations, so that, in the ultimate result, as close an approximation as possible may be achieved to the ideal which we have held before our eyes for very many years. Having indicated, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lime-house did on Monday last, our readiness to participate in the work of the Joint Committee, I think it will be conceded to us as a right that it is our duty to call the attention of the House to what we would regard as desirable conditions for making the work of the Joint Select Committee as effective as possible. It is a truism, surely, that our main concern in this discussion this afternoon, as it will be of the Joint Select Committee when it meets, is the well-being of India and of Indians. Indeed, that point is conceded by implication in the fact that we have been informed that representatives of Indian opinion will be invited to London in order to participate in some way or other in the deliberations of the Joint Select Committee. But I would remind the House of words which the Secretary of State for India used on Monday last. I quote them in order to bring them to bear upon the point I am about to submit:
No scheme that does not honestly face all those problems"—
That is, the problems of British India and of the Indian States,
and make a serious attempt to reconcile those interests—quite often conflicting interests—is worth the paper on which it is written."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March. 1933; col. 703, Vol. 276]
I submit to the House, quite seriously and quite honestly, and not in order to make a debating point at all, that it really is no good suggesting that you have a favourable atmosphere in India for the discussion of these proposals until all people who represent all shades of opinion
in India are free to discuss them among themselves. I dwell for a moment upon this point because it is rather vital. As everybody knows, there are thousands of people at this moment in gaols in India. It is also well within the knowledge of the House that large numbers of these people—probably the majority—belong to the most influential body of organised opinion in India. Whether it is opinion which is commended by this House or is not commended, it is the largest body of organised opinion in India, and its leaders, the people who are largely responsible for moulding the opinion of that organised body, are at this moment in prison.
We are told, and have been told by the right hon. Gentleman frequently, that the attitude of the Government is that before there can be any consideration of release for these people, there must be a declaration that the policy of Non-Co-operation has been abandoned. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to put that to the test? Does he honestly expect those people individually to tell him, "We have abandoned Non-Co-operation"? Next Friday, I believe, there is to be a conference of the Congress party in Calcutta. That Congress assembly has been banned by the authorities in India. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman as a fair proposition that if he wants these people to make a declaration that they have abandoned Civil Disobedience or Non-Co-operation, the only way he can expect it is to allow them to have an opportunity to discuss the matter in general conference, and he is really asking too much when he invites them individually and severally to abandon the Civil Disobedience Movement, without giving them an opportunity to consult with their colleagues in the movement. I want to show how really big a bearing this has upon the measure even of consideration which these proposals will have in India. Sir Tej Sapru, speaking at the last meeting of the Round Table Conference, about Christmas last, used these words:
We feel that it is not merely our duty, but it is also your duty to mobilise public opinion in favour of that Constitution in my country. And I do suggest that unless we are able to convince the political classes which have been taking deep interest in these matters—classes who have been a source of trouble to you and of trouble some of us—unless we are able to convince
them, the chances of the Constitution making a wide appeal to the country are of a very limited character. May I say in all sincerity that there are some matters on which I very radically differ, and have differed, from the Congress in my country.
And will the House mark this sentence?
But with all my difference from the Congressmen, I hold that so far as Mr. Gandhi is concerned, he sums up in his personality the highest degree of self-respect of India and of the highest degree of patriotism in the country.
That is not the view of a Congress man. It is not the view of a Labour man. It is the view of a person who, politically, has found himself in conflict with Mr. Gandhi and his friends in India, and yet he submitted to the Government before Christmas that there was no chance of these proposals even getting consideration without Mr. Gandhi and his colleagues being free to discuss this matter in consultation with their political friends. I will not press the matter further, but I had to discuss it, because it is the second part of the Amendment which I am submitting to the House.
I merely want to add this last word. What the. obstacle to this may be, I really cannot tell. Whether the obstacle is here, at home, or whether the difficulties are mainly being raised in India, I cannot tell. But if this House is called upon to take the responsibility for endorsing these proposals or otherwise, no one, however highly placed either in India or here, has a right to put an obstacle in our way in securing complete consideration for these proposals in India, and I submit that it is hardly playing fair to the House of Commons to ask it to accept proposals of this sort unless the proposals that are to be presented shall be discussed in an atmosphere as free from bitternes and prejudice as it is possible to secure.
I have dealt with the second part of my Amendment first. I now turn to the first part. It says:
to devise a scheme which, by giving effect to the repeated pledges given by His Majesty's Government to raise India to the status of an equal partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations, will command the assent of the people of India.
This portion of my Amendment calls attention to "repeated pledges," and there is no one in this House who will controvert the proposition that pledges have been given by Government after Government, and they have not been
entirely indefinite pledges. The words used have been so explicit that it is almost difficult to believe that any interpretation but one could be given to the words used. We are asked this afternoon to implement one step further the proposal that Indian people shall have a larger share—if I may use a noncontroversial term—in the government of their own country. No one will deny that in the Government of India Act, 1917, there were clearly-used words which have been interpreted by the Indian people ever since as implying that the Government of Britain intended that India should enjoy a measure of self-government within a fairly decent limit of time.
I dwell for a moment upon this point, because it really will not do for same of the critics of the Government who are in the House at this moment to cavil at the demand for a larger share of self-government for India, seeing that from 1917 to 1922 there was a Coalition Government in office in this country, and in that Coalition Government there were four present Members of this House who were influential members of that Administration. They were the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). All four were members of that Coalition Government. I have called attention before to an act which took place in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping himself participated in 1921. I turn aside for a moment to say that the right hon. Member for Epping was kind enough to explain to me privately in what sense he acted on that occasion, and I would not for all the world like to do violence to his interpretation of his action on that occasion. But, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I really must press this point, because the Minister, highly placed as he was on that occasion, did not act in his private capacity. He went to the Imperial Conference in 1921, and there, speaking not in his private capacity, not for himself but for the Government of which he was then a member, he used the phrase of which Lord Irwin reminded him in the "Times" of 24th November, 1931, and he reminded him of
it for the reason that the right hon. Gentleman had used this phrase in the House:
Now that they had before them the actual legal provisions of Dominion status, was there anyone who did not see the folly and the wrong of declarations that excited the hopes of the Indian political classes that, after a brief period of transition, full Dominion status would be conferred on an Indian Central Legislature?
The right hon. Gentleman was shocked that people should be so shamefully misled. Lord Irwin reminded him of a sentence from a speech of his own in 1921. These are the words:
We well knew how tremendous was the contribution which India made in the War in 1914.
Then there are some intervening words, and he went on:
We owed India that deep debt, and he looked forward confidently to the days when the Indian Government and people would have assumed fully and completely their Dominion status.
I am afraid this is not the first time I have suggested that a retrospective glance at the right hon. Gentleman's record would not do him any harm in this matter. I did so on a previous occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman told me then: "Oh, I used the phrase 'Dominion status' on that occasion in the ceremonial sense." What this ceremonial sense really means, I cannot tell. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will define it when he speaks presently. Now we come to 1926, when the late Lord Birkenhead, speaking in the House of Lords on the 7th July, said:
We no longer talk of holding the gorgeous East in fee. We invite, in a contrary sense, the diverse peoples of this continent to march side by side with us in a fruitful and harmonious partnership, which may re-create the greatest and the proudest days of Indian history.
I do not know what sort of partnership he had in mind, but I cannot see them marching side by side in a harmonious relationship shackled by the provisions of this White Paper. They wiil not march very far, certainly. Then I would recall to the House the recommendations of the Simon Commission, which are well known to everyone, and I would again recall to the House the declaration of Lord Irwin, speaking, not as a private individual, not as an insignificant member of any party, but speaking with all the authority of a Viceroy of India. These were his words:
I am authorised on behalf of His Majesty's Government to state clearly that in their judgment it is implicit in the declaration of 1917"—
made by Mr. Montagu, when Secretary of State for India in the Coalition Government, in the House of Commons,
that the natural issue of India's constitutional progress as there contemplated"—
I would ask the House to mark these words—
is the attainment of Dominion status.
The right hon. Gentleman, I think rightly, complained on a previous occasion that we often used these phrases somewhat lightly. Very good. I overlook his own lapse from grace in that matter. It is quite true that, when we are talking to these people in terms of the future relationship of themselves with us, it is important that precise language should be used, and that we should not deceive them even by a syllable. I submit that I have proved, by references to other Governments, that this House, through its Ministers, is overwhelmingly pledged to the proposition that the Indian people shall possess Dominion status through the medium of a legislature of that sort. But what am I to say of this Government? The right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State for India immediately after this Government came into office, and in December, 1931—I think he was in office then—there was issued a White Paper containing the most explicit statement as to the conceptions of the Government concerning the future legislature of India. Let me read the words of the Prime Minister himself. To be precise, I will read the whole paragraph. He said:
At the beginning of the year I made a declaration of the policy of the then Government, and I am authorised by the present one to give you and India a specific assurance that it remains their policy. I shall repeat the salient sentences of that declaration. The view of His Majesty's Government is that responsibility for the government of India should be placed upon legislatures, central and provincial, with such provisions as may be necessary to guarantee during a period of transition the observance of certain obligations and to meet other special circumstances, and also with such guarantees as are required by minorities to protect their political liberties and rights.
I would direct the attention of the House to this next paragraph:
In such statutory safeguards as may be made for meeting the needs of the transitional period, it will be a primary concern
of His Majesty's Government to see that the reserved powers are so framed and exercised as not to prejudice the advance of India through the new situation to full responsibility for her own government.
I ask, in all good faith, how does this White Paper square with the most explicit promise made, not merely on behalf of the Labour Government, but on behalf of this Government, including the right hon. Gentleman? How does he square the White Paper with this declaration?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): They are substantially the same.

Mr. JONES: We shall see presently, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to go ahead. I ask that question rhetorically, if I may say so, at the moment. I shall come to it a little more closely presently, because I submit that there is a vital difference between the significance of this White Paper and the declaration of the Prime Minister. Before I go on, let me now turn to some other words used by the right hon. Gentleman. They are in Command Paper 3772. That was in January, 1931, before the present Secretary of State was in office. I ask the House to listen to these words:"
What have we been doing? Pledge after pledge has been given to India that the British Raj was there not for perpetual domination. Why did we put facilities for education at your disposal? Why did we put in your hands the text books from which we draw political inspiration, if we meant that the people of India should for ever be silent and negative subordinates to our rule? Why have our Queens and our Kings given you pledges? Wh4y have our Viceroys given you pledges? Why has our Parliament given you pledges?

Sir S. HOARE: I am afraid I do not recognise that quotation. I do not object to anything that is said in it, but the style seems to be much more eloquent than my own.

Mr. JONES: It may sound a little more verbose than the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but I submit to him that I did not read it as being his. I was speaking of a gentleman who really is capable of this eloquence, namely, the Prime Minister. He was speaking on the 19th January, 1931, and the words are his. I have quoted them textually from the document. What is the answer to these questions? Why have we given all these pledges? Why have our Kings and
Queens used these words? Why have they spoken in these prophetic terms of the Indian people? Why has this Parliament given pledges of various sorts? Can it be assumed or pretended that this White Paper is a redemption of the pledges to which I have referred?

Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: It is a first instalment.

Mr. JONES: I have heard it called a first instalment, but the second and last instalment would seem to be very long in coming. We are told that these proposals are the effort of the Government to redeem those pledges, but they are so circumscribed. I do not want this afternoon to go into a detailed discussion of the safeguards, because they have already been discussed by my hon. Friends on this side. I merely say that I subscribe entirely to the criticisms which my hon. Friends have advanced against these proposals, and especially as regards the safeguards. There is, however, one sentence to which I would like to call the attention of the House. Perhaps it is not always fair to take a sentence out of the context, but in this case I do not think I am doing injustice to the Secretary of State's speech by taking this sentence out of its context. I think the point is still quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman said, in order to give comfort to the critics of the Government's policy. "Do not be alarmed. These safeguards, I assure you, are quite effective; they are not paper safeguards; they are really effective." And, by way of showing how effective they are, the right hon. Gentle man used these words:
But I would ask hon. Members to look very carefully at the proposals which we have made in the White Paper for the constitution of the Federal Legislature and of the Provincial Legislature; and, if they analyse these proposals, I think they will agree with me "—
I ask the House to mark these words—
that it will be almost impossible, short of a landslide, for the extremists to get control of the federal centre.
Then he went further, and said:
I believe that, to put it at the lowest, it would be extremely difficult for them to get a majority in a province like Bengal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1933; col. 706, Vol. 276.]
There may be a case for taking steps—I do not subscribe to it, and I do not
admit it—there may be a case, from the right hon. Gentleman's point of view, for erecting a barricade to prevent what he calls extremists from arriving at a position of power; but there is no case in favour of pretending to erect a legislature and then saying that that legislature is so carefully safeguarded by a barbed wire of safeguards that no one whom he regards as an extremist has a hope of ever having a majority inside it. The right hon. Gentleman and his friends—and in this matter I associate myself with him—and some of my friends on this side, agree to support the constitutional methods of development in our land, but I wonder what the right hon. Gentleman would think, supposing that we, some day, having secured a Parliamentary majority in this House, proceeded to carry a Bill through the House to make it impossible for extremists like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping ever to have a majority. Surely, if there is any merit at all in your Legislature, it ought to be that it is a reflex of the minds and aspirations of the people at large. If you take steps to bolt and bar the door against a large section because you call them extremists, clearly your Legislature is in danger of becoming a mere sham and a fake.
Let me take one safeguard alone—the Army. The right hon. Gentleman flatters himself, I think with truth and propriety, that in the long run, whatever happens, there is an Army. Let me see what he says:
Compare the Indian position with the Irish position? In India the Governor-General, the Provincial Governors and other high officials are still to be appointed by the Crown. The security Services, the executive officers of the Federal and Provincial Governments, are still to be recruited and protected by Parliament. The Army, the ultimate power in India, is to remain under the undivided control of Parliament. Those are no paper safeguards. Here are the heads of Government endowed with great powers and given, as I shall show a few minutes later in more detail, the means of carrying those powers into effect. The effect of these provisions is, broadly, this, that when in the exercise of his responsibilities a Governor feels constrained, for example, to differ from his Ministers the orders which he issues to the Services will be no less the legal orders of the Government than if they had resulted from his Ministers' advice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1933; col. 709, Vol. 276.]
What sort of Legislature do you call this, a Legislature which knows, to begin with,
that the largest section of organised opinion in India has no hope of securing a majority inside it? What sort of Legislature is it where the most highly placed officer of the Crown can forbid the introduction of a Bill, can order the alteration of a Bill, and, when the Bill has passed the Legislature, can even withhold his signature from it? This thing is a sham. The safeguards simply hamstring the progressive forces of India in that sense. Take the question of finance. What sort of Parliament would this be if it had no right to determine how its taxes were to be levied, how they were to be spent, how much was to be spent upon this department and upon that? Some centuries ago one of your predecessors, Sir, was held down in the Chair because Parliament insisted upon the right of this House to determine how taxes should be levied, and yet here is this Parliament more than 300 years later declaring to the Indian people that they can look after waterworks and sewers. But control finance? No. Control the Army? No. What sort of Government is it which has not the power even to appoint its Civil Servants? It has not as much power as a glorified county council in England.
We are told that we have a right to make these reservations because of our interests in India. I should be the last to deny that we have the most intimate interests in that vast sub-continent, but, however important may be the case for safeguards, I ask this question still. In view of the enormous powers with which these Governors and the Governor-General are endowed, is there not some safeguard necessary for the Indian people? In Ceylon, for instance, there has been a change in regard to the electoral system. The system there has worked very well. The trouble in Ceylon is the interferences which the Governor has undertaken with the activities of the local Legislature. If this kind of procedure is imposed upon the Indian people it will have two effects. It will endow the Governor-General and the Governors with authority which they ought not to be endowed with and the fact that they are so endowed will reduce the measure of responsibility which the people of India will themselves feel for their own self government.
I have tried as best I can to present the case in support of my Amendment. It contains two points. One is an appeal
for the amelioration of the relationship between ourselves and the Indian people by a consideration once again of the liberation of the incarcerated prisoners. I am sure that these proposals cannot be properly considered in an atmosphere of bitterness and prejudice such as this situation creates. The other is this. I think I have shown that the Government, this Parliament and Members of this House are already committed up to the hilt in pledges in respect of India's development towards self-government. India is not to enjoy it. Clearly she is to be kept down by force. The Government relies upon its Army. The Government relies upon its superior strength. May I recall to the House the words of one who tried force fairly extensively in his lifetime. Napoleon, looking at the wreckage of his Empire from the rocks of St. Helena, contemplating the disaster which had overtaken his life and his efforts, used words something like these—I am speaking from memory: "Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and myself all founded Empires. Upon what were our Empires based? Upon force. One conqueror there was who founded an Empire upon love. He placed it in the hearts of men, far beyond the limitations of time and space, and to this day millions would willingly die for him." I desire my country to engender a love of that sort amongst its political associates. I should like the people of England and of India, and of all other parts of the world for which we are responsible, to keep the name of our country dearly in mind not because of our imposed will or superimposed force but because of this fact, that England trusted them and, in trusting them, endowed them with the means to govern themselves.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The two able and informing speeches to which we have listened are fitting elements in the introduction of the third day of this important Debate and, indeed, the whole character and quality of the Debate has shown the keen interest that the House has taken in the subject of Indian constitutional reform. That is as it should be. Our ancestors never grudged attention to Indian matters. Read the great Debates on the impeachment of Warren Hastings, or the Indian Bill of Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox, or the Debate upon the assumption of the Imperial Crown by
Queen Victoria, or the Debates of 1919. All these fill our Parliamentary records. And yet I think the Debate that we are engaged in may well be mare important not only than any but perhaps than all these foregoing Debates put together. Whereas all these discussions in the past were the slow, gradual, steady building up of a great structure of peace and order in India and increasing the authority and vigilant attention of Parliament over all the Indian scene, we are now confronted with proposals which mark the definite, decline, and even disappearance, of our authority in India, which proclaim our disinteresting ourselves in the welfare of its people and our readiness to hand over, after 180 years, India's fortunes to Indian hands.
We are to do this at a time in the history of the world when the processes of Parliamentary government and electioneering are becoming increasingly distrusted and discarded throughout the Western world. We are to do it at a time when the struggle for national existence and for the maintenance of secure, firmly attached markets is becoming ever more fiercely intensified and when we see the most powerful, the most civilised, and the most modernised countries resolutely seeking to hold, to acquire or to regain oversea possessions and without the slightest compunction claiming and asserting the rights of colonisation and the rights of conquest. When you think of what we are discussing and of the situation of the world, surely, it is not too much to say that this Debate is fraught with memorable consequences both to the people of Great Britain and to the numberless peoples of Hindustan.
We are approaching the end of this Debate, but it is only the beginning of what may be one of the most serious controversies of British politics. It will be a painful controversy, because it must necessarily largely be conducted against friends or former friends. It will be a long controversy, because the procedure which is prescribed makes it impossible that the Bill to be founded upon the White Paper can become law for 15 or 18 months, and, as I gather, three or more years may elapse after that before the system of Federal Government responsible at the Centre of India can be brought into existence.
Let me, then, survey the whole scene, and I begin at the turning point with the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. The Montagu-Chelmsford reforms have failed. They were an experiment, admittedly hazardous and doubtful, made in good faith, but they have failed. They have failed by every test, moral and material, which can be applied. Every service which has been transferred to Indian hands has deteriorated markedly. Nepotism, corruption, inefficiency, general slackening, a lowering down of the Services has invaded and infected all the departments which have been experimentally handed over and which, I may remind the House, are of such vital consequence to the daily life of the masses of the Indian people. Instead of increasing contentment, these reforms have aroused agitation and increased disloyalty. Instead of bringing peace between jarring races and rival religions, they have only awakened old passions which were slumbering, and slumbering profoundly, under the long Pax Britannica. These reforms have concentrated the mind of India so far as it is conscious and vocal during the whole of this period upon political and constitutional change, and diverted the energies of the country from all those important material and administrative improvements which are really the main interests of the Indian peasant and of the Indian workman. They have not even contented those political classes for whose satisfaction they were originally conceived.
I do not wish to make this statement too sweeping, because, no doubt, a lot of good work has been done, and will be done, but still, in the main, the first fact on which we should stand to-day is the failure of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. I say they have failed. I dare say that my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who I am told has a rifle carefully loaded for me, will say that I shared the responsibility for them. I will not disclaim any responsibility. I was not, in fact, a member of the War Cabinet which continued to rule until November, 1919. When the regular Cabinet was restored and for the first time I was asked, officially or unofficially, to express an opinion upon these matters, the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms had already been read a Second time in both Houses of Parliament, and had come to us with
the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Committee of both Houses, or almost unanimous. But, still I was a member of the Government, like my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. We were both members of the Government, and, I have no doubt, made speeches in support of the Administration and its general policy, as others have done before and will perhaps do hereafter. Here I am going to defend my right hon. Friend as well as myself, and carry him along with me under my aegis. We shared our responsibility with all the Members of the House of Commons at that day.
The great scheme of Mr. Montagu and Lard Chelmsford passed through Parliament without a single division. We may well ask why the Members of those days, many of whom are in the House to-day, behaved in this manner, and what were the reasons which led us to this supine neglect? I suppose that we thought, "It must be all right." We thought, "The India Office have approved the plan and all the details have been carefully discussed with the Government of India. The 'Times' newspaper writes able articles in its favour." So we thought, "No doubt the Secretary of State is a very nice fellow, has taken immense pains, and has set his heart on the scheme." No doubt we thought 10 years ago: "We must not add to the difficulties of the Prime Minister whose burdens are so heavy and who has to go abroad so often. We must back up the National Government which has just been returned by so large a majority." I suppose that we thought all those things, and with a little assistance from the able Whips the scheme was allowed to pass through without even any serious examination by Parliament. We are all to blame.
I remember seeing—I do not think that I attended those Debates—on one occasion an elderly member of the Conservative party standing up there—Colonel Yate—apparently very excited and making frantic gestures of warning, but we all said: "Oh, he is only one of those die-hards. Some fellow who has been a lot in India and consequently cannot know anything about it." I am glad to revive his memory to-day. Although we Members of that Parliament may he all to blame, to-day we are deal-
ing with issues which far exceed in importance the mere awarding of praise or blame to individuals. Let no one who sits here, or wherever he sits, delude himself by supposing that he can escape responsibility for what is now proposed by casting the blame on the past. Here we have to deal with the present and with the future, and every one, from the youngest Member to those who have longest borne the burden of affairs, is accountable to the nation and to history for speeches, votes, action or inaction now and in the critical months which lie before us. If mistakes were made in the past, do not repeat them now. If there are elders in this House who look back with remorse to decisions with which they have been associated in the past, let not those who are more happily situated prepare for themselves sombre self-reproaches in the afternoon or evening of their lives. Blame me if you will, blame the Parliament of those days if you will, taunt me if you will, discount my opinion, as you are entitled to do by any words I have spoken before, if you will; but in your hands, and on your heads lies the responsibility of what you yourselves are now about to do.
The conditions of the last General Election were very exceptional; probably they were unique. Very large numbers of Members are here who have not been here before, and who did not, in many cases, expect to be called upon, and all the more credit to them for coming forward to face the task of fighting an election with no hope or ambition. It is to those Members I particularly appeal. Let them take warning from what has happened in the past. Let them be careful. Let them beware that in years to come when another House of Commons will be here and perhaps other trains of thought will rule our minds, they do not find themselves sitting by their own firesides when across the dark distances from India, to quote a celebrated phrase of John Morley, they hear
the dull roar and scream of carnage and confusion
coming back to us. Then bitter will be their feelings of responsibility and of agony when they feel that they themselves played a part in bringing about a situation of such frightful disaster. I appeal to them to discard altogether the
mere recriminations about what happened in the past. They cannot throw the blame upon the past nor can they throw the blame upon the people. What more could the British democracy have done than give the majority which they gave at the last election? Never was there such a vote in favour of the greatness of Britain. Some may say mistaken in some way. I am not arguing that. But everyone knows that the impulse which brought all those millions of very poor people was the strength, honour, and endurance of our country, and its greatness among the nations. It is no good saying that democracy is doing this. If any failure occurs, it is in the respresentatives which democracy has chosen, or in those who have the power to direct their actions.
The first question which we should ask ourselves and which was touched upon by the right hon. Gentleman, is: Are we free to decide, are we free or are we pledged; are we free or are we bound, and to what extent are we bound? We cannot be bound by individual speeches. They may reflect upon the individuals who make them, or may not, but the policy of the State must be determined only upon legislative action and solemn declarations made by the Sovereign on the advice of responsible Ministers. In these days, when so many speeches are made by all people who take part in politics, it would be most dangerous to admit for a moment that speeches even of Ministers and Members of the Government can be taken as pledges and as bonds which fetter the power of Parliament and the representatives of the nation to deal with the great problems of the day as they think right and best. Happily there is no dispute whatever between me and the Government about that. I have always taken my stand on Clause 41 of the Act of 1919. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State read out a passage, carefully prepared, every word of which had been carefully weighed, on Monday last to prove that we were not bound, or pledged, or committed in any way except in so far as you may say by way of moral obligation, the general trend of our institutions, and the growth of opinion in India. Therefore, I say that we have a right to decide.
Let me ask: have we the power? During the last Parliament, under the late Viceroy, very serious disorders broke out all over India. There were religious massacres of Moslems by Hindus, and there were reprisals. There were perpetual riots in Calcutta and Bombay. We saw the Congress burning the Union Jack at Lahore, with impunity. We saw prolonged paralysis of Government around Peshawar. We saw Lord Irwin negotiating with Mr. Gandhi. We saw the Indian Congress hoping to establish itself as a parallel Government in India and presuming almost to stand between the Government of India as an interpreter to the people of India. Side by side with all these events we had the undermining perorations of the Round Table Conferences, leading Indians to assume, without any warrant from Parliament—because we know that Parliament is free—that they would very shortly be called upon, after a brief period of transition, to assume responsible Government in India. When I protested against this state of affairs, against these tendencies, when I urged that it would be necessary, sooner or later, to break the Congress and Mr. Gandhi and all that his movement stood for, the late Secretary of State, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, and his like, were accustomed to reply that I sought a reign of blood and terror in India, that artillery and machine guns would have to be used ruthlessly, that large reinforcements of troops would have to be sent from England into the country. All these hideous nightmares were paraded for our warning and alarm.
The present Government, the present Viceroy and the Secretary of State, who both share the credit, have acted as I then advised, and what has been the result? Order has been largely restored throughout India. The Civil Disobedience Movement is broken. Mr. Gandhi, upon whom the Prime Minister and Lord Irwin lavished their caresses, has been in prison—I am sorry for it, for many reasons—for more than a year, together with a very large, but happily diminishing, number of his followers. Hardly anybody has been killed or severely hurt. Not a single British battalion has been employed except on the frontier. Very few collisions have taken place of a serious character between the police and the rioters. The decision of the Government of India to enforce the law with-
out fear or favour has been instantly accepted throughout India by the overwhelming mass of the people. I believe, therefore, that there is no doubt of our ability to govern India justly and wisely, in our own way, and to entrust able, educated Indians, with whom alone the Government of India can be conducted, with an ever broader share of responsibility in the administration, as and when we think fit.
I reject, therefore, the defeatist argument that we have not the power. We have the power, and we have the right to decide. I know that the Secretary of State will tell me that the mere enforcement of law and order would not have produced peace unless accompanied by the kind of proceedings in which he has been indulging at the various Round Table Conferences, and that it is the hopes excited by Ministerial speeches about the advent of central responsible Government in India which have calmed the passions which had formerly been rife. There I differ from him entirely. I believe that is the reverse of the truth. Just as the disorders in India under Lord Irwin arose largely from the rumours that the British Raj—to quote a term well known now in our controversies—was coming to an end and that the Gandhi Raj, or the Congress Raj, would succeed it; just as these rumours promoted the disorders under Lord Irwin, in the same manner these same rumours have hampered the restoration of order, have delayed the revival of confidence, have made the officials less sure of themselves and have spread that feeling of unrest and approaching change among all political classes. The achievement of my right hon. Friend and of Lord Willingdon, who both deserve credit, is remarkable, and it is the more remarkable that they should have so easily restored order in the face of all this continuous undercurrent of political and constitutional insecurity.
If, then, we have the right and power to choose freely, what should our choice be? We are often taunted by those who say: "What is your alternative? I do not think that is a very fair question to ask. You have a great Government in power, with all the resources at their disposal, who, after these many years of labour, have produced this White Paper and their scheme of 110,000 words. Why should they say to a few poor gentlemen
who represent the Conservative party—[Interruption.] If the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) will go to her constituency, she will find out who represents it. Why should a few of us be expected to present another complete, brand-new, elaborately-worked-out system? We in this matter have the great advantage that we employed a Statutory Commission, which for three years travelled about the length and breadth of India and presented a report, unanimously agreed to by all parties, and we, in our humility, think we are in the first instance entitled to rest ourselves broadly and confidingly upon that. I have never considered the Report of the Simon Commission—I do not know that I ought to call it that any more; I think I had better say the Report of the Statutory Commission, not wishing to embarrass my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary —I have never regarded the Report of the Statutory Commission as if it were a final revelation, sacrosanct, incapable of modification or amendment of any kind.
In particular, many of us have argued that the police should not be handed over to the provinces, and we will argue that as opportunity occurs on the Floor of this House. To do justice to the Statutory Commission, they did not say that the police should be handed over in this crude manner. They used a lot of arguments, some of which we heard yesterday, about the only way to stop the police being abused is to put them in the hands of the people who are abusing them. But when it comes to their actual recommendations there is a very hopeful and very helpful recommendation, namely, that one or more—that is better still—nominated Ministers should be attached to the Governor of every province. Obviously, if that were so, the Governor of any province where the conditions rendered it necessary could entrust the portfolio of the Home Office to one of the nominated Ministers who enjoys his confidence. I say this to show that, while we do not accept the Simon Commission as the final word, to be accepted exactly as it stands, it might well be taken as the basis for Parlia mentary examination. We have contended that it should be so taken and that its members should carry special weight in our debating and should have
been used in all the subsequent negotiations and consultations with the Indian delegate.
That seems to be a not unreasonable position for private Members to assume in this matter, but the Secretary of State twists our attitude to suit his own contention. He made a speech the other day in which he taunted those who said that they supported the Simon Commission as a basis, with being prepared to force democratic Government in India upon the provinces. He argued, in effect, that by adopting the proposals of the Simon Commission as the basis of discussion we had stultified ourselves in opposing the application of the same principle or of the same system to the Central Government of India. That is another warning to the House of the advantage which will be taken—I am sorry to say it—by the Government, by those I will call the Round Table-ites, of every step taken by their opponents towards compromise and agreement. Only two days ago the Secretary of State said that practically everyone in the House was eager for the setting up of provincial Government in India. I will therefore declare quite plainly, speaking entirely for myself, that while for the sake of agreement between all parties I attach the greatest importance to the recommendations of the Statutory Commission, and many of us are willing to see further experiments made in the provinces, it does not follow at all that we think that that experiment will succeed.
I think that in many of the provinces responsible Government will only accentuate administrative deterioration, racial and religious unrest and political tumult, which have been the fruitful results of the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme. Far from advocating such a scheme, or forcing such a system upon the people of India, or being eager to do so, I wish sincerely that matters had not been handled in this way or had come to this pass; but for the sake of agreement, despite our misgivings—you cannot stop the progress of the world because of misgivings—I should be quite ready to make it clear, by all practical tests, that we are sincere in doing all in our power to help Indians to a greater share in the responsibilities of Government—I think we might well begin in some of the provinces, as was suggested by a Noble
Lord yesterday—provided, of course, that the power which is given, the delegated power, can be resumed without serious disturbance if it is found to work to the injury of the people of India.
If we thus agree to provincial self-government, it is not because we are forcing it upon anybody, it has been forced upon us; it is not because any of us think it will succeed, it will most likely fail, but if it fails at least the disaster is local not general, it is subordinate not supreme; and, as long as the central Government of India is intact, secure, or to quote the jargon in this matter in India—unitary—it will always be possible to help a province which has fallen into disorder or in which the administration has scandalously degenerated, whose people are suffering from a failure of essential services; it will always be possible to help them back to such poor structure, poor but precious, of justice and civilised organisation which we have hitherto been able to erect in India. If, on the other hand, the provincial experiment succeeds over the whole of India or in a particular province, or in some provinces, we shall have to admit that a tremendous argument has been established, an argument of facts, not of words, an argument of achievement not of aspiration for a further advance. It we were provided after 10 or 15 years with a considerable number of prosperous, orderly, contented, loyal provincial units, nothing could stop an arrangement being made to weave these units into the higher synthesis of a Federal organisation.
There are two contentions of His Majesty's Government to which I must refer. The first is that none of the Liberal elements in India, on which they are relying, will take part in provincial autonomy unless they have the police handed over to them and unless Federal government is set up at the centre. All I can say 'about that is that it is not an argument which should weigh with us. We are here to give what we consider right and wise, not to give what we consider wrong and unwise because it is the minimum necessary to satisfy some not very representative Indian political groups. The second point was contained in the speech of the Foreign Secretary yesterday. He used what I think is an even more questionable argument in his
guarded, balancing, lukewarm but brilliantly ingenious speech with which he regaled us, and I could not help thinking as I listened to it of the cynical remark, "Distrust first thoughts; they are usually honest." I think we all understand, anyone who lives long enough in this House and who has experienced the vicissitudes of going in and out of Government will realise, the difficulties with which he had to contend and will admire his craftsmanship in dealing with them. On these occasions the skilful advocate will always look for a new fact. When a search is being made for reasons for a change of opinion the first thing is to search for a new fact, and the right hon. Gentleman produced a new fact; that the Princes of India offered to come into Federal government only if it was to be upon a responsible basis.
Is it possible that the right hon. Gentleman does not know, has he never heard, of what lay at the back of that extraordinary stipulation on the part of the Princes? I have heard on fairly good authority that the disappointment of the Princes, their alarm at the announcement of Lord Irwin that Dominion status was brought to the fore again, made them feel that they must look to their own future, secure their future under a totally different order of things. Then members of the Congress party discussed with some of the Princes, and an arrangement was made very much on the basis of what my right hon. Friend opposite would denounce—if you will help us to gain more power at the centre we will see that you keep your full rights over your own subjects in your States. That is the only reasonable explanation of such a stipulation on the part of the Princes.
I confess that I am not attracted by any part of that argument. I am not particularly anxious to see the Princes at this juncture brought into the Central Government of India, nor am I anxious to set up a Federal system in India. I am not at all induced by the argument which suggests that we should do something which we do not like in order to accomplish something which we like still less. In this Debate His Majesty's Government have been very apologetic. Perhaps that is too much to say; at any rate, they have been very deprecatory. The Minister of Health, who I do not see in his place, went even further in
humility and moderation, in the moderation of his enthusiasm for the Government's proposals, than anything I have heard said in this House. Speaking on Saturday in his constituency, in contact with the opinion of his constituents, he said of the White Paper that
It was in the first place only a suggestion.
This product of so many conferences, inquiries, discussions, debates, the labour of the East and the West, this White Paper, for which we were told to wait and not prejudge the issue before it came out, the Minister of Health now says is "only a suggestion." I think that is going too far. We should really have a little stiffer attitude from the Government about their own proposals because they are every day engaging great masses of opinion in support of them. But they have been apologetic, and no one can say that the Motion which we are to vote upon now is not very cleverly and very adroitly framed, obviously with the intention of dodging a Division and confronting Conservative opponents of this policy with a proposition which they cannot possibly resist. Who can resist a Motion which begins by stating that no decision is to be taken by this House? Who can resist a Motion for appointing a Joint Select Committee, not in substitution for the ordinary Committee and Report stages in this House but in addition to those stages, and as preliminary to the Parliamentary procedure involved in the passing of a Bill? Certainly no one can vote against such a proposal. I think it is our duty to give the Government all possible support in repulsing the extremist Motion put forward by the official Opposition, and I shall certainly contribute my vote to what I trust will be for them a thoroughly satisfactory majority.
But do not let the House delude itself by supposing that the dangers of this question are passing away. On the contrary, this Committee which is to be appointed is appointed by a Government which will have an overwhelming majority upon the Committee and which, in addition, to its own majority will have all the support of the Socialist representatives and all the support of the Liberal representatives. The position of Conservative Members on that body, those who are not addicted to, or affected to, the Gov-
ernment will, indeed, be forlorn. They will sit hemmed in on all sides by men pledged to secure the triumph of the Government policy or even to carry it further, and then after prolonged discussions have taken place and these unfortunate representatives have been voted down time and again by the machine, the overwhelming machine, at the disposal of the Government, the Government will present to Parliament a Bill which they will say is based upon the report of an impartial Select Committee which they appointed for that end.
I think that the Conservative party is asked to take an immense responsibility. Every party in this country has its own function. The Labour party is concerned with the minimum standards of life and labour. The Liberal party have their liberty, and it is an honourable charge, but the Conservative party have always had the duty of holding together the strong body of constituted authority in the State and the possessions we have throughout the world. It has always been their duty to view with great caution and in a critical faculty widespread proposals for constitutional change. Now you see what happens when the Conservative party, instead of putting its hand on the brake, is led to put its foot on the accelerator—the whole balance of our public life is destroyed.
I invite hon. Members to see how events develop. The Conservative party controls this House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ought to do so!"] And Parliament controls the Viceroy and the Government of India. These in their turn come into play. We see the strange and unnatural spectacle of the Imperial Government turning its strength against its own interests and rebuking its own friends. We see the pressure which is put on the Princes. We read the extraordinary incident referred to by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) of the altercation, or discussion, between the Jam Sahib and the Viceroy only the other day. We do not see so closely the pressure which is put on the officials. For five years past the high personnel of India has been arranged, continuously arranged, with a view to securing men who will give a. modern and welcome reception to these sort of proposals. It is one of the greatest evils
of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms that throughout the Service the path of promotion has tended to be more easy for those who readily throw themselves into what are regarded as the irresistible moods of the British nation.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman any proof of that statement?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I say that the officials ought not to have been quoted by the Secretary of State. I did not introduce this topic. The hon. Gentleman who is so ready to act the bully—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"] I have a very difficult task. I do not wish to have any quarrel with my hon. Friend, and, if I said anything discourteous to him, I am sorry. But I am bound to say that I am stating a case with enormous forces ranged against that statement, as I see, and therefore it is not, perhaps, particularly valiant for an hon. Member to leap up in that way.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to make statements like that when he is asked in a very courteous way if he has any proof of his statement made against the Indian Civil Service, a most sweeping statement made against the whole of the Indian Civil Service?

Mr. CH URCHILL: I am replying to the statement of the Secretary of State that practically all the high officials in India were in favour of this White Paper, and I think it is perfectly fair to say, in view of that, that during the last five years, and even during the last 10 years, the kind of opinion which has been promoted to leading positions throughout the Indian Civil Service has been that of people who are supposed to be modern-minded and acting in the spirit of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms.

Sir S. HOAR E: The right hon. Gentleman has no justification whatever for that statement.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will never withdraw a statement which I am certain is founded on fact. Then the Secretary of State claimed all the commercial classes. Of course, when the Conservative party
of this country is known to have thrown its weight behind a scheme of this kind—this has been going on for the last three years—the commercial classes in India have despaired, and their despair is now quoted as if it was their approval. When the Prime Minister emphasises the safeguards, when the White Paper emphasises the safeguards, they are, of course, magnified for British consumption, and when it comes to India the opera glasses are turned round the other way. There are two audiences and two voices. We heard that the Government was confronted with the dilemma—either the safeguards are real, in which case responsible government is a sham; or responsible government is real, in which case the safeguards are a fraud. There is another dilemma into which we must ourselves be careful not to fall. That is, are we opposing this scheme for what it concedes or for what it withholds? Let me say that I think we ought to condemn it both for what it concedes and for what it withholds. The greatest objection to the scheme is that it neither gives nor withholds on any coherent or workable plan. On the one hand it offers autonomy in the most sweeping terms; on the other it sets up autocracy in an extreme form. It leaves these two opposite principles to struggle together within the heart and brain of the government of India.
It is a perfect plan for inaugurating an era of ceaseless strife, and the contending forces are evenly balanced. Both are armed with great power and great facilities, so that their warfare will be long, exciting, equal and calamatous; but I cannot conceive a scheme of which it could more properly be said that it comes "not to bring peace but a sword." The Viceroy or Governor-General is armed with all the powers of a Hitler or a Mussolini. There is practically nothing that he cannot do in the sphere of the Army and foreign affairs. He has the power to tax apart from the Legislature; he has the right to safeguard minorities; he has the right to safeguard the interests of the Civil Service; he has the right to safeguard the interests of the native States; he is authorised to prevent commercial discrimination. All these great powers are confided to him. By a stroke of the pen he can scatter the Constitution and decree any law he pleases, or
martial law, which is no law at all. Of all these he is the sole judge.
Such a functionary is a dictator, and he has behind him a very powerful Army. Yet at the same time he is instructed to work a democratic Constitution tactfully, and to govern by consent, when consent is not forthcoming. I pause to ask, have such opposite qualities ever been united in the breast of a single human being The phlegm of Bismarck, the energy of Mussolini, the special knowledge of Colonel Lawrence, the high ideals of Mr. Gladstone, the deft persuasiveness of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—all would seem to be needed in the functionary who has to discharge these opposite tasks and with so much thoroughness. The Secretary of State said yesterday that the Viceroy would have less to do than he had to do now. I should have thought that that was an absolutely absurd contention.
Let me look at the constitutional aspect. All these safeguards which are placed in the hands of the Viceroy are not new; they are not new creations of the Government. They all reside at the present moment in the structure of the Government of India, in the Viceroy and his Council, in the Secretary of State and his Council, in the great Indian Departments, and in this House. They are all there. But what we are doing now, and I think it singularly unfortunate, is to pick out all these essential safeguards and to set them out in a row, in a category, to be the target of every kind of criticism, and to place the Viceroy in a position where he, the representative of the King-Emperor, is responsible and can be made responsible and blamed for almost everything that takes place in this vast Empire.
But there is one notable omission from the Viceroy's powers. He is removed from the people he has to govern. The only functions of Government, practically, that are outside his jurisdiction, are those which concern the daily welfare of the masses, their education, justice, hospitals, their railways, their engineering works, the care of their forests and natural resources, the weight of taxation. He can, I gather, increase taxation, but not diminish it. All these things are beyond his sphere. We have a superman, not yet found, who has everything laid upon him except to mitigate the lot of the common
people. That is judged unworthy of his attention; that can be safely transferred and handed over. I even heard the Secretary of State boast, glory in the fact that the affairs of 230,000,000 people were handed over freely, lock, stock and barrel, to these new legislatures, untrained and untried, which in all other respects are to be carefully controlled by safeguards.
I hope the House was stirred by the very powerful speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). He certainly struck a new note in this controversy. The powers of the Viceroy and the Governor-General, immense as they are, are counter-worked, to make things equal, by other provisions of this Constitution. The holder of these great powers is rendered virtually impotent. For his information he has to depend upon responsible Ministers; he has to work through them and the departments which they control. The police, 180,000 of them, in five years are possibly not even to be recruited by him. Even the Army is spoken of as a force which is to be transferred some day to Indian hands. All the great services which make the life of the Indian superior to the life of the Chinese have been taken from the purview of the Viceroy. The British officials are provided with an emergency exit so that they can throw up their jobs, should their condition become intolerable. The lonely Satrap has all the power, but it is blind power. He has no means of acting upon the hundreds of millions of people he controls, except by troops. His position is very similar to that occupied by the Tsar of Russia before the Revolution, with immense power, immense ceremony, mighty military forces, but no real contact with his people.
Where, I should like to know, would a general be without his staff? Where would a Member be without his local organisation Where would a Minister be without his Department? Where would a Government be in times of distress if the police were withdrawn from the control of the Executive? Such is the position of the Governor-General. He can tax, but who is to collect the taxes? He can overrule an Act of commercial discrimination, but if there is a boycott to effect the same purpose as the Act would have done, he must go to the very
Ministers he has overruled and ask for their support in controlling the boycott. He can protect the rights of the Civil Service, but their appointment, their treatment, all their daily affairs, will be in the hands of responsible Ministers, who, I cannot help feeling, will increasingly wish to get a very large reduction in the number of white officials. Why should they wish these officials gone? My right hon. Friend has made it abundantly plain. These British officials are to be the cadre, the steel framework upon which this country has to rely to enforce all the safeguards.
Of course, the position of these officials will be very invidious. You cannot consider the state of the Indian Services as they are to-day; you have to consider the state in which they will be in four or five years' time, when they have been under responsible native administration. They will be an organism of Indian life, and it is by no means to be taken for granted, indeed it is even improbable, that these great departments can be taken over at a moment's notice by the Viceroy or by the Governor-General simply by an act of power at a time when probably there is a great Nationalist movement in progress in India, and when he is overruling and dismissing the responsible Government which has been set up. Why should Indian officials risk their livelihood and their careers against their own fellow-countrymen in an emergency of this kind, for the sake of an Imperial Power—an alien Power I think the Foreign Secretary said they called it—which has declared itself in process of liquidation and is actually in train to hand over its authority to a new regime? My right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead quoted a statement from Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru yesterday, but he left out, by accident, a very important passage which I must read to the House:
The Constitution, however, places such a powerful weapon in your hands that if you can send into your legislatures the right sort of men, I have not the least doubt you can achieve all you want probably much quicker than you imagine, because the cumulative weight and effect of these changes will be such that they dare not resist your demand for the further expansion of the Constitution, its natural and logical evolution being Dominion status.
A little further on he said to his colleagues:
I would advise you all to grasp power, for it is far better that you should send those who oppose you to gaol than suffer yourself to be shut up. I therefore say it is the duty of every one of you to capture the machinery.

Mr. MAXTON: Hear, hear!

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, and that is very like the doctrine which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) unfolded the other day. Proceed by constitutional measures until you get control of the police and the Army, and then go ahead with your revolution. But I am bound to bring these points to the House although they are by no means in harmony with the mellifluous language which is usually employed on these occasions. If this is the position of the Viceroy, with all the power and, as I say, without the executive machinery to exercise that power, look, on the other hand, at the position of the Indian Parliament. They would have all the constitutional title-deeds. There is no constitutional argument that will not be at their disposal. They will be able to claim that they are the elected representatives of the people. They will have control of the party machine, of the organisation of elections, and so forth. They will have the great bureaux in their hands. They are told that they are responsible for the well-being of the nation. Endless means of friction will arise between the responsible officials and the Government or the Governor-General and they will have a hundred means of making their pressure constant upon those harassed functionaries. I am amazed at the perverted ingenuity with which the Government have arranged a grievous and a certain struggle, very similar, as my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) has said, to that which convulsed England in the struggles between Crown and Parliament during the whole of the 17th century.
I shall endeavour to curtail my remarks as much as possible, but I am anxious to conclude the argument which I am putting before the House. The case of the Governor-General will apply, on a smaller scale but more crudely and directly, to the Governors of the provinces. Eleven potential dictators—11 hopeful and aspiring Parliaments! And this warfare in the provinces will proceed simultaneously with the graver disturbances at the summit. Then, when
this is occurring, you will perhaps learn the wisdom of the Statutory Commission's remark, that unitary government at the centre was most important during the development of the Provincial Legislatures.
I will examine only one other element in the Constitution—the Senate or upper Chamber at the centre. A great deal of fine filigree work has been put into that. There are Princes, Moslems, representatives of the landowners, certain official representatives and so forth. There is some provision, I believe, for a two-thirds majority and so on, and I am ready to admit that the character of that assembly will be such that it will have very stiff opinions about the rights of property. I have not the slightest doubt it will be very careful to protect the rights of property, the rights of the landlord, or of the moneylender, or of the Ahmedabad mill-owner, or, no doubt, of orthodox religion. In that respect it may be a highly Conservative chamber, but not in the best sense of the word. But when you come to the kind of question with which we are concerned here, issues which arise between Parliament and the Crown, issues which arise between India and Great Britain and which will be fought out, then it seems to me that you may very easily find that these forces, on which you are so trustfully relying at the present time, may be actuated by quite different motives from those which you attribute to them.
How can Hindu Princes—and are they not seven-eighths or nine-tenths of the whole—be expected to stand against the movement of Hinduism throughout the whole of India? How can they be expected to stand against that movement when Congress will have means of causing disorder in any one of their States? How can you expect Moslems to show themselves less forward in advocating what is called the national cause than their Hindu fellow-countrymen? No, Sir, it may well be that while you will have, for the purpose of the maintenance of Indian property rights, and Indian trading interests, a very strong, firm, oligarchy, there is not the slightest guarantee that the whole of them may not be ranged on nationalistic lines against the Viceroy and this country in any serious constitutional dispute.
Evidently Ministers do not believe that this situation is one that can last, and it seems they have no doubt how it will eventually resolve itself. Hence all these safeguards arranged to satisfy British opinion. But they are all placed in the Instrument of Instructions and not in the Constitution and thus can be discarded by a simple resolution. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly, they can be discarded by simple resolution and not by the process of a Bill.

Sir S. HOARE: In the first place, the special responsibilities will appear in the Bill itself. The Instrument of Instructions will merely be an additional guarantee.

Mr. CHURCHILL: But those which are in the Instrument of Instructions can be varied by a simple resolution, and that is the most serious flaw in the right hon. Gentleman's elaborate scheme.

Sir S. HOARE: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman again, but this is very important. The special responsibilities of which he is speaking will be in the Act itself and they will have statutory authority, in every important case, anyhow.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am glad of that, but I say that the Constitution itself, the bringing into power of the Federal Constitution, does not depend upon a Bill. That is to be brought into operation by a simple resolution. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend who is it, what force is it, which really welcomes the Constitution he has put forward. The Indian Congress denounce it in unmeasured terms. Indian Liberals say they will use it only as a tool to extort further favours. As to the Indian Princes, you have great doubt whether you can coax, cajole, persuade or coerce even half of them to come in. I very much doubt whether any Conservative Government could be formed which would endorse such a Constitution. The Socialist party, as the official Opposition, have shown by their Amendment that they will only take this Constitution, which you are regarding as a most audacious adventure, as a starting-point for a further departure. Nowhere, here or in India, is it a national policy, or accepted as a national settlement.
I must draw the attention of tile House to the insidious way in which this Federal scheme is being brought into operation. It is to lie in the Constitution Act and to be brought into operation by resolution. There is no date assigned on which it is to be brought in and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State gave a very naive reason why no date should be assigned. He said to the Round Table Conference at the end of the year:
The machinery of the Constitution would be of a complicated nature, and Parliament, if it were confronted with a definite date, might be much more cautious in the delay and the provisions of caution that it might demand than it would be without a date
That shows what the right hon. Gentleman thinks of us. It is as if you were to say: "The poor silly Members will not worry about it so long as there is no date, because they will say that it will not happen for some time; but if there is a date then they will boggle about it and make a lot of awkward objections." But what is going to happen when we are confronted with this Bill eventually? Then, the Federal Constitution will dominate Indian affairs, and to bring it into operation and at the same time to attack the safeguards will be the desire and the effort of all classes of Indians. This pressure will continue and when there is a Socialist Government in power, as there may be some day, how easy it will be to remove the safeguards which stand in the way. How easy it will be to sweep away or to slur over the conditions which you claim should be established in the setting up, say, of your Federal Bank or in other provisions of that kind.
Where will the Conservative party be then? Where will it stand then? It will not be the Government, but will it be the Opposition 7 It will have conceded every single principle, and stripped itself of the protection of constitutional procedure when these violent changes are to be brought into play. I can anticipate the speeches that will be made by a Labour Secretary of State in some future Parliament. Mr. Wedgwood Benn or some other able gentleman will say: "We are bringing the Federal Constitution into operation now. True, all the conditions have not been complied with, but this is a policy, in principle agreed
between all parties. This is a policy which a Parliament containing an overwhelming Conservative majority approved, and we are only carrying it into effect with some minor alterations in detail. There is no serious opposition to this policy." Then you will find, in resisting that process, which can be achieved by a single simple Resolution of both Houses, that either it will have to go through and that this vast edifice can be set, up without proper precautions or conditions, or else you will have to throw a burden upon the House of Lords which, in its present unreformed condition, I think would be grossly unfair and extremely unwise.
Since the year 1927, when the Simon Commission was first appointed, all India has been agitated by constitutional change. There has been no breathing space. I was hoping that the Government would find it possible to take some decisions which would give, at any rate for a spell, a pause to constitutional agitation in India. Surely the administrative apparatus, which in India is 20 times more powerful and more important to the people than these political and constitutional changes, should be given a chance to work. Surely we ought not to complicate the already hazardous departures which are proposed by the Simon Report by vague, hypothetical, and much larger departures for which the conditions have not yet been established. Surely Parliament should have the manhood to say, "We will give what we can give now, freely and boldly. We will not promise to go further until we see what the results of giving all that we now can give have been in practice." Surely that is a faithful, a sensible, and reasonable policy for our country to pursue and for an Imperial Government to advise, instead of adding, on the top of all that is now proposed, this scheme, for which you admittedly have not got the conditions yet established, and which will continue to keep India in a ferment and in a turmoil until it has eventually been achieved or until it has finally been discarded.
I thank the House very much for having listened to my statement. I have trespassed, I fear, at undue length upon it, but I have only this to say at the end. It is a tragedy that the greatest gift
which Britain has given to India was not the gift that India needed most. During the last 50 years the population of India has increased by 100,000,000. The prevention of wars and famines and the control of infanticide and pestilence by British rule have brought that enormous accession to mankind. It would have been far better if the exertions of our devoted men and women in the East could have emerged, not in a mere multiplication of teeming humanity upon the very lowest level of subsistence, but in a, substantial raising of the standard of life and of labour of a smaller number. But that has not been within our power. The 100,000,000 are here. The 100,000,000 new human beings are here to greet the dawn, toil upon the plains, bow before the temples of inexorable gods. They are here. You cannot desert them, you cannot abandon them. They are as much our children as any children could be. They are actually in the world as the result of what this nation and this Parliament have done. It is impossible that you should leave them to be diminished by the hideous processes of diminution which keep the population of China in check. It is impossible that you should hand them over to the oppressor and to the spoiler, and disinterest yourselves in their fortunes. By every law of God or man Parliament is responsible for them, and never could we hold an honourable name among the nations if we pretended, by any sophistry of Liberal doctrine or constitutional theory, to cast away our responsibility, so vital and grave.
But here in our own island we have a very similar situation. Our population, too, has rapidly expanded. There are perhaps 15,000,000 more people here than could exist without our enormous external connections, without our export trade, which is now halved, without our shipping, which is so largely paralysed, without the income from our foreign investments, which is taxed to sustain our social services. I suppose some 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 people in this island get their livelihood from beneficial and honourable service interchanged between us and India. We have some 3,000,000 unemployed now, and this is no time for us to divest ourselves of rights and interests, which we have lawfully acquired, and to expose our population in the years that are to come to a steady, grinding contrac-
tion in the standards of their life. I pray that the people of Britain may be awakened to a sense of their danger and to a sense of their duty before it is too late.

6.6 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I am sure the House will sympathise with me, not in having to reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) because that, I must say, after the speech which he has just delivered, is a less difficult task than I thought it would be, but in the fact that in a moment or so we shall have one of those annoying interruptions of business, to which it would not be in order to refer, but which will necessitate the House rising for 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. I venture to break all etiquette by saying that I hope some of my hon. and right hon. Friends will, return to hear the answer which I propose to make to the extraordinary case which my right hon. Friend attempted so elaborately to build up in the speech which he has just delivered to us. May I say, in the first instance, how much I regret, on both personal and political grounds, to find myself in disagreement with my right hon. Friend?

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners. The House went; and having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to,—

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act, 1933.
2. Evidence (Foreign, Dominion and Colonial Documents) Act, 1933.
3. Austrian Loan Guarantee Act, 1933.
4. Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act, 1933.
5. Indian Pay (Temporary Abatements) Act, 1933.
6. Local Government (General Exchequer Contributions) Act, 1933.
7. Assurance Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1933.
8 Public Works Facilities Scheme (Torquay Corporation) Confirmation Act, 1933.
9. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Buckingham and Oxford) Act, 1933.
1060
10. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Leek) Act, 1933.
11. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Rugby Joint Hospital District) Act, 1933.
12. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Taunton and District Joint Hospital District) Act, 1933.
13. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Chester and Lancaster) Act, 1933.
14. Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Eton Joint Hospital District) Act, 1933.
15. Preston Corporation Act, 1933.

And to the following Measure passed under the provisions of the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919:

Benefices (Purchase of Rights of Patronage) Measure, 1933.

Orders of the Day — INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."

6.20 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I was about to observe, when Business was interrupted, that I regret very much to find myself, both on personal and political grounds, in opposition to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is he?"] I think that it would be fair to realise that my right hon. Friend has made a long speech, and naturally desires a little recreation afterwards. I have no doubt that he will, in due course, return to our deliberations. Nevertheless, I propose in his absence to pay him the compliment which I am about to pay, that is, that all through the 1906 Parliament I felt, in common with many others who sat on the Conservative benches, that it was a, great misfortune that we were deprived by his attachment to the Liberal Party, which fortunately proved only temporary, of a vigour, courage and initiative, which is all too rare in our political life. Further, I must observe quite frankly that sometimes in recent years, and indeed in this Parliament, I have felt that he expressed the real point of view of those who sit on these benches more clearly than some of our titular leaders.
For all these reasons I greatly regret that I am in opposition to my right hon. Friend. I oppose his judgment simply and solely because I believe that his views on the Indian situation, the views which he has held during the last five years, to be fundamentally wrong from beginning to end; and if I thought those views wrong before I heard his speech this afternoon, I think so doubly after having listened to him to-day. My right hon. Friend, who is now happily again with us, possesses, like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), oratorical guns of a range and calibre which are unsurpassed by almost anyone else in this House, but those guns are open to attack from the bombs of the records of their own past deeds, the damaging quotation, the devastating parallel. No two men in this country, or, for the matter of that, in any other—because most of the men who held high office after the War have gone—are more responsible for results and events all over the world—for which they had a prime responsibility—that they spend a great deal of their time in condemning and deploring them. That is as true of India as it is of other matters. If I may change the metaphor, I will say that with all the experience of my right hon. Friend in manual labour, he cannot shovel enough earth over his past to obliterate it from human view. His colourful and arresting personality has been indissolubly bound for the last 25 years with constitutional experiments and evolution in South Africa, in India and in Ireland which, whether we like it or not, have left an indelible mark on the situation at present existing in India and affect the means for dealing with it.
My right hon. Friend evidently anticipated that I and subsequent speakers in the Debate would make some reference to his responsibility for the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. Like the rest of us who were in this House at the time, he does not seek to absolve himself from that responsibility. I was sure that my right hon. Friend would not do so, but he must not isolate the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms from the rest of his political career. There are other things for which he is responsible in different parts of the world besides that, and I shall ask him later on how he reconciles his views and actions on those occasions with the actions and atti-
tude that he has taken to-day. I am not twitting my right hon. Friend with inconsistency. Nothing is more mean or small than to tell a Member that he has been inconsistent when he frankly admits that he has changed his views. But my right hon. Friend does not admit that he has changed his views. He is still proud of his part in the constitutions of South Africa and Ireland, and I ask him to reconcile the action he took in those cases with the attitude that he has taken, with all the great powers at his command, in the House to-day.
He said that the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms had definitely failed. I think that that is rather a tall statement. I do not think that it is true to say that they have definitely failed. I cannot for the moment recollect what my authority for the quotation is. I am not sure that it is not in the Simon Report. At any rate, I have seen it in some official document, where it was stated that it would be difficult to say whether the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms had failed or succeeded. My right hon. Friend will believe me, who have had a longer experience of Indian administration than anyone in the House, when I say that it is not those who have been working those reforms in India, either official or unofficial, British or Indian, who will say that they have failed in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman used the term. He gave us an unduly gloomy view, a picture which was too gloomy to be true, of the situation in India as a result of those reforms.
I will point out to my right hon. Friend these facts. We have in India to-day, of all the great countries in Asia, one which is most free from trouble and disturbance—and that under the Montagu-Chelmsford system. I regret that the Dominions Secretary, in a rather incautious phrase the other day, referred to China and India as two countries in which there were turmoil and revolution. Surely anyone can distinguish between the conditions in India and in China, and surely no large country in Asia is more free than India is of those troubles. The credit of India stands as high in the markets of the world as any comparable country, the Budget bears comparison with that in any other part of the world, and the country shows progressive economic advancement. All this has
taken place in circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman described to the House amid the cheers of his friends, who seem to be getting more and more gloomy every day, as deterioration. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) gets even more gloomy both about the present and the future in India. Amid the cheers of his friends my right hon. Friend said that this country, where all these happy things are occurring, was in a deplorable state as the result of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms.
Although I do not want to pursue the matter, I must refer to one most calamitous reference which my right hon. Friend made to the Civil Service in India. Deeply as I regret to be so much in opposition to him, I must invite him to give an explanation of what he meant. He told us that for the last five years men in high office in India had been carefully chosen because of their particular opinions. There is no question about it that that is what he said, and he went on to say that he might even have said "for the last 10 years." I regard that as a most serious reflection on a number of people, and I am going to say who they are. First and foremost, there are our civil servants, those who are not here to reply for themselves. This is not the first time he has made charges against the Civil Service, because he made them previously against officials of the Foreign Office. This is a serious charge also against the Viceroy, both the late and the present Viceroy. It suggests that they chose their principal advisers because of their particular political opinions and not because of their capacity for their office. Lastly, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman, quite frankly, that he is reflecting on the present Secretary of State, on the late Secretary of State and on Lord Peel and Lord Birkenhead. I really think my right hon. Friend should offer some explanation, outside this House if he does not desire to do it in the Debate, of this extraordinary charge which he made against persons in high office. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will explain by a letter to the "Times," or in some other way what exactly he meant by this. I am very sorry. I must apologise to the House for suggesting that my right hon. Friend should write to the "Times." I ought to have said to
the "Morning Post." To-day that is a much more favourable breeding-ground for the right hon. Gentleman's doctrines than it was 10 years ago.

Mr. CHURCHILL: And a much less favourable one for yours.

Earl WINTERTON: Events will prove in the future whether that be true or not. It is a long way to Tipperary, however much one's heart may be "right there." If I may say so, the Lord President might well say to my right hon. Friend, if I may quote an old cliché "They will never kill me" etc. That is a matter for the future, but I am concerned to-day to make this answer to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend is unduly complimentary in entering me into such an exalted competition.

Earl WINTERTON: I was tempted into doing so by the right hon. Gentleman's actions outside. I venture to suggest that my right hon. Friend has approached this matter of self-government for India from a wholly wrong standpoint right from the beginning, and I am going to take a line which, I think, has not been followed before in this Debate, but which I believe to be a sound one, and that is to say that there are only two possible systems of relationship between Western democratic Powers and the peoples of Asian and African territories under the same flag. One is the French system, and the other is the system we have pursued towards India, and it would be well, in considering possible alternatives to the Government's plan, to consider, in a sentence, what. the French system has always been. For years past the French have said to their North African fellow citizens, "We admit you to membership of our nation, with all that it implies—its obligations and sacrifices and a fair share in its advantages. We admit you to its Legislature and its culture. You can enter our Parliament, be received on terms of equality in our homes. But you must fight for us and do trade with us." That is the attitude which France has always taken to its North African colonies, a very different attitude from that which my hon. Friends—I do not use the term in any disrespectful sense, because I have been one myself—who are popularly known as "Die-hards" have
always taken, in all their speeches, towards our fellow-subjects in Asia.
The British, on the other hand, speaking generally, have said to our Indian fellow subjects through the mouths of successive Governments over almost 100 years, "You shall fit yourselves to govern yourselves, and we will show you how to do it through the education we will give you, and in a thousand ways. We will not control you for ever, but rather guide you to the goal of self-government in the British Empire"—or in the British commonwealth of nations. Either of those two systems is possible. If the right hon. Gentleman had come forward and advocated the French Colonial system, I should have listened with attention to what he said, and I can well imagine that a man of his vigour and initiative would be one who might put that system into operation in our case. But what is not possible is for western democracy to say to another race, or conglomeration of races, within the same allegiance, which has any tradition of civilisation, however different it may be from the civilisation which we have in this country: "Though our own Government depends on popular support, often ignorant, usually capricious, in no circumstances will we grant you representative or responsible Government for your population, which from its very nature can never support responsible Government."
That is an attitude which this House cannot take up, and those Members who in their speeches imply it, are attempting to force upon the House a, policy which neither this House nor any of its successors can possibly take. Even if the thesis were true without qualification, and it is not, though there is a measure of truth in it, the mere existence of huge masses of unattached electors in this or any other western democratic country makes it sooner or later certain that there will be in power a Government of the Left which will concede everything to that overseas country which its most extreme nationalists demand, because its domestic policy would preclude it from putting an unpopular policy into operation by force.
Therefore I say, and this is my first point, that I cannot think that any person even of in the House—and I am sure there is no person with ill-will here—can possibly deny that that makes
it the more necessary that in this Parliament, especially as being a Parliament with a National Government, we should try to devise a permanent system of Government for India, which subsequent Governments here, whether they be of the Right or the Left, would be unlikely to abolish. That is the main task before this Parliament—to establish a system which has general support, not perhaps the support of everyone in every party, because that is impossible, but which has general support. I would only say this, that it would be deplorable that the nature and form of Indian constitutional government should become for long years a tilting-ground in the controversies of British political parties, and, worse still, a subject of internecine party strife. My right hon. Friend seemed almost to favour the idea. I hope it is not his intention that we shall have a long period of fighting, going on for years and years.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What I meant was that I gather that several months will be occupied with the proceedings of the Joint Committee. Then next year, I presume, probably not till after the Budget, a Bill will be introduced which will have to be passed through all its stages in both Houses. That means 15 or 18 months of severe argument upon this question. In addition to that, several years have to pass before the federal system can be brought into operation.

Earl WINTERTON: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend. I hope he agrees with me that the sooner this question is settled the better it will be for all of us, because I cannot imagine anything more calamitous than to have a cat-and-dog-fight over it. We have avoided that in the past. Nothing could be worse for the British-India connection, and, above all, for British trade, than a long period of dispute about the form which the new Constitution should take, and therefore it is all the more necessary that it should be settled. I would only make this reference to British trade, to Lancashire trade, and say that, after all, the Lancashire cotton trade, like export trade everywhere in the world, depends upon having a willing buyer, and we certainly shall not have willing buyers in India or anywhere else unless the people are favourably disposed to the Government in power at home and to the political situation which is imposed upon them.
The idea that we can compel India to buy our goods, as some people seem to think, is wrong. How are we going to do it? No nation has ever been able to compel another nation to buy its goods. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the French system?"] They do not compel their subjects to buy unwillingly; they do it willingly. I was talking about willing or unwilling buyers, and I say that there is no such thing as an unwilling buyer in foreign countries.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: What about the duties in Ceylon?

Earl WINTERTON: My hon. and gallant Friend is a great authority on the Army, but not a great authority on economic matters. I submit that you cannot logically or reasonably differentiate in aim, however much you may properly do so in method, in the system of government for the different overseas communities within the Empire. I find myself in a very isolated position. I believe in the inter-dependence, not independence, be it marked, of the Empire. We can have a self-dependent British Empire, in a strategic and economic sense, with as many units as possible having self-government. I say my position is an isolated position, because the Liberal and Labour parties clearly do not believe in it. They do not believe in the Empire as an economic and strategic whole, and a great many of my hon. Friends do not accept the other part of the policy which I put forward—they do not believe in an extension of self-government to these different units of the Empire, which I believe essential if we are to have a real Commonwealth of Nations within the Empire. As regards the aims to be pursued, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping would, I think, be the last person to deny, from the whole circumstances of his political career, that that should be our aim alike for those portions of the Empire predominantly peopled by those of European descent and for other parts of the Empire where the people are of a different race. I do not think he does deny it. He said in a very notable Debate in which he took a very notable part, in his comparatively early days in this House—the Debate when we gave a constitution to the present Union of South Africa:
No responsible statesman and no British Cabinet, so far as I know, ever contemplated any other solution of the British South African problem than that of full self-government.
Mutatis mutandis this applies to India: I ask the attention of my right hon. Friend to this matter. Surely with all the authority and weight that he commands he will not let it go out of this House to-night to our fellow-subjects in India that our ultimate aim there should be different from that pursued towards the Dominions. I hope he is not going to do that, because if he does he takes a very serious, responsibility on his shoulders; it would make every Indian wonder whether it was worth while being one of the Indian subjects of the King. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not deny that our aim should be the same. I hope that the difference between those members of the Conservative party who are supporting the Government and those who are my right hon. Friend's supporters is one of degree and of kind, and not of aim. I say that, because there were some passages in the speech of my right hon. Friend which left me in very considerable doubt as to whether he did approve of the aim which I quoted from his speech on the South African Constitution. It is utterly illogical for the right hon. Gentleman to take a different point of view.
To those who take a different view I would say how would you argue with an Indian of loyal and Constitutional opinion, who was defending his point of view. Suppose you said to him: "I am not going to give self-government to you in India because of your racial divisions." His reply would be: "Have you never had racial division in the British Commonwealth? Have you not had it in Canada, and have you not got it in South Africa to-day?" The person arguing this point of view might go on to say: "But look at the difference in efficiency between Europe and Asia." The Indian would reply: "Have you ever contrasted Japan with Portugal, for example?" Then you go on to say: "But look at the difference in the ability and courage of the individual man between Europe and Asia." The reply to that would be, "Have you never heard of the work done by the Indian soldiers in the War?" Finally, using the argument very popular in what are known as Die-hard circles outside, the person tak-
ing up this anti point of view might say: "Yes, but nepotism and corruption in administration—"

Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Hear, hear!

Earl WINTERTON: "Hear, hear," says my hon. and gallant Friend. Let him listen to the answer. "Nepotism and corruption in administration are the very bone and fibre of Asiatic life." What would be the reply? The Indian would say: "Can you point to an example, in any of the Indian-controlled municipalities, of a city so flagrantly corrupt in its administration as the cities of New York and Chicago?" If you take the line of the superiority of the European over the Asiatic, you not only render it almost impossible for the British Empire to go on, but you are inviting very dangerous replies. The difference can only be one of method. I would like to ask my right hon. Friends one or two questions in regard to their attitude towards the White Paper. I listened very carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping said. It was obvious that he was trying to be sincere and frank with the House as to what his attitude was. We all know that. After a full study of the White Paper, and with some knowledge of administration in India and some responsibility as a member of the Third Round Table Conference, I fail to see how the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as it has been shown to us—and I say that we are not very clear about it—[Interruption.] I am just proceeding to discuss the plan.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I made it quite clear that I was speaking only as a humble private Member.

Earl WINTERTON: Is that quite worthy of my right hon. Friend? Here you have one of the most powerful figures in politics in this or any other country. Here is the right hon. Gentleman, with immense power and ability to sway masses outside, as certainly, in my 30 years' experience, I have seen them swayed. Here is the man who gets a longer report in any newspaper than any other living man. He has a great position outside, and he has been leading a group within the Conservative party against its accredited leaders, and when he is asked what his plan is he
says: "I am only a humble private Member, and it is not for me to disclose my plan." I really do not think that that is quite worthy of my right hon. Friend's reputation.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I thought I said that we would be guided by the Statutory Commission's Report, subject to amendments that might be made in Parliamentary discussions, and that we would make an advance in provincial self-government as advised there. If that were a success, we would be ready to consider a further step after it had been proved that the Recommendations of the Simon Report had been turned into actuality.

Earl WINTERTON: I fail to understand my right hon. Friend's grievance. I said that I was going to proceed to discuss the plan, and he immediately interrupted me.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: The purpose of the interruption was to correct the noble Lord when he said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) brought into being this group, or that he led it. The right hon. Gentleman has been well known to express his views in this House, and when this group was formed, chiefly through the instrumentality of the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) and one or two others and assumed considerable proportions, the right hon. Gentleman joined it as a back bench Member of this House.

Earl WINTERTON: Even to my limited intelligence the whole situation is now quite clear. I really do not wish to pursue that further, but I only wish to be allowed to discuss the plan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, which he seems rather to dislike my discussing. He seems to wish to disabuse my mind about it. Let me not refer to his plan but to his general thoughts. I fail to see how his general thoughts are likely to give more security and more chances of stability in India than the Government's proposals. I wish to discuss that point. The right hon. Gentleman's plan, or thought, or the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, suffers from the great and supreme disadvantage of being unacceptable to the very people a proportion of whom you
must have on your side to work any system, and they are the men in public life in India.
Let me face the situation frankly. It may be true, according to the underlying idea of all the speeches of those who are opposed to the White Paper, that the real evil in India is the politician. It is only fair to observe that quite a number of people outside this august Assembly say exactly the same thing about this House. I do not wish to refer to myself, but when I made a speech some 18 months ago criticising His Majesty's Government, I ventured to say that if the Members of all the front benches, or who had ever been on the Front Bench, were sent to sea and were drowned, than nobody would mind. I had numbers of letters taking my re marks quite seriously. Some of them made references to the Front Bench on this side and the other side as well, to the bench below the Gangway and to other parts of the House, and said that they hoped that they would be included in the cargo. It is only fair to say that contempt for and suspicion of politicians is not confined to India. You have to work with the men in public life, in order to operate any constitutional system—Moslems, representatives of depressed classes, representatives of the anti-Congress Hindus, the anti-Brahmins and the Sikhs, are all of them more bitterly hostile than many hon. Members realise to the Congress all say that.
To give provincial autonomy with an unchanged Central Government would be to give far less security to that country than the Federal Constitution proposed by the Government, for the simple reason that it would mean continual friction between the provinces and the centre. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping made a rather slighting and injurious reference to European business men, when he suggested that, as a result of the administration of Lord Irwin and Mr. Benn—who are as a red rag to a bull to him, these European heads of great businesses in India, had lost their nerve and become défaitistes. That is really absurd. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the business men in India know far more about what is good for India than some of his more vociferous
supporters. They have said that this federal system, with all the defects and imperfections which can be stated about it, offers a far better chance of bringing permament peace and security than does any alternative scheme that has yet been put before us.
I want to say something about that. There has been an astounding misuse of terms and of appraisements of value in this Debate, or rather in the discussions in the country generally, among Conservatives who are opposed to the Government scheme. These Conservatives are willing to concede responsible autonomous Government in the Provinces, as recommended by the Simon Commission, with the important qualification that the new provincial Governments are not to control it; in other words, to leave to someone else the delicate task of carrying out unpopular measures. Just for a moment, imagine the happy position that a Minister would have in India, under the scheme propounded by my right hon. Friend and others, who want entirely to ignore the recommendations of the Simon Commission. The Minister would be able to bring in a Bill, however unpopular it might be. His advisers would go to him and say: "You must not bring in this Bill, because you will never be able to put it into operation. You will have the mass of people against you, and you will have to double your police." The reply would be: "Never mind about that. I am not responsible for the police. The British Parliament in its folly has kept the police under the old Government. Unpopularity will not rest upon my shoulders; it will rest upon the police."
That is the answer to the rather astounding reference made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to the Home Secretary in this House yesterday. It was not true to say, when we discuss matters appertaining to the Home Office, that we are all full of embarrassment. On the contrary, it is part of our ordinary duty. It has been well said by a great speaker that a system of representative Government without responsible ministers and without responsible powers has led to endless friction and inconvenience wherever and whenever it has been employed. No one could deny that, least of all my right hon. Friend, because it is from the speech that he made in this House
on the South African Constitution. That is the real answer to Ibis point about, the giving of a form of autonomy to the Provinces. I would make this observation before I leave this subject: If the danger is so inherent as to make it, criminal to risk responsible Government in India, why is it much more risky to grant an All-India Government; hedged about with careful safeguards in vital subjects; and representative of the most Conservative forces in India than it is to give Provincial Autonomy?
I was rather amused yesterday when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) was speaking. He referred to this new Constitution as being most conservative and reactionary, and received cheers from the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth. Since when it has been a crime in my hon. and gallant Friend's eyes to set up a Conservative constitution anywhere in the world? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was attacking the Constitution, from his point of view, for being so Conservative. The hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth evidently agreed with him that it was a deplorable thing.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I am afraid the Noble Lord quite misunderstood any applause I gave to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is not because I think the Princes will be a Conservative element; it is because I am convinced they must ultimately vote with their religion.

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman cheered the remarks about this being conservative. The hon. and gallant Member has a great reputation in the country, in Bournemouth and elsewhere. Let him never refrain from cheering references to a Conservative constitution being set up. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping sees inherent danger in All-India responsible Government hedged about by most careful safeguards, and representing the most responsible people. But if the Provinces are misgoverned by the new Ministers, it will destroy the whole structure of Indian government equally. Yet responsibility at the Centre is described as a great betrayal and abdica-
tion. I must make an observation. The combination of my right hon. Friend and the "Morning Post" using a word like "betrayal" strikes me as extremely humorous, in the unconscious sense. Eleven or twelve years ago the "Morning Post" was opposing the grant of self-government to Southern Ireland. I was among those—there were not so many in the Tory party—who lifted up their voices in support of a wise and courageous cause. In those days the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping was not only one of the betrayers, but might be described as the captain-general of the betrayers. The House finds it very difficult to reconcile the two situations. I do not want, to pursue this part of my speech, or to embarrass him more, since some of his supporters never make a speech from a platform without referring to the "great surrender" in Ireland. It does not seem to me that the "Morning Post" and my right hon. Friend can have been right on both occasions. If any of my hon. Friends are nervous and doubtful because of this newspaper, for which I have a great admiration, and if they are nervous of the effect upon the opinion of their constituents, let them rely on an equally Tory paper, with three times the circulation, the "Daily Telegraph," which has from the first supported this scheme of Federation for India, as being the safest and best scheme which can be proposed in the circumstances. I must make one further reference to my right hon. Friend's past speeches.

Sir A. KNOX: On a point of Order. Are we discussing the future of India or the past of my right hon. Friend?

Mr. SPEAKER: I thought we were having a Debate.

Earl WINTERTON: It may be that he supports provincial autonomy, and I think it is a fair question to ask, believing that if it breaks down the status quo ante can be restored. I am not going to take what is called a "soppy" or sentimental attitude. I want him to see what are the difficulties. My right hon. Friend said it was perfectly easy to get Indians to come in and assist in any form of Government. That is quite true. They would be prepared to come forward, but they would say they
wanted an answer to one question, which is "How long are you going to apply this system, and will you give a guarantee that you will not be succeeded by a Government which will upset the whole apple-cart?" No one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Government in 1906, that it was by the action of that Government, between 1906 and 1910, that they destroyed the whole of the admirable administration of Ireland by Unionist Governments.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was in the midst of his peroration yesterday, and I did not interrupt him because I have a very great admiration for him and an old friendship, when he pointed across the Floor of the House and said, "You are responsible for the South African Constitution." We are not responsible. There is the man, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, who, more than any other, is responsible. I am not saying whether that Constitution is a good or bad thing. You could have governed South Africa as Lord Milner did for many years. By so doing you might have avoided the worst dangers of racialism that exist to-day. What upset that was the existence in power of a Government of the Left, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. Supposing the right hon. Gentleman found himself the head of an Administration, he could put his views into operation, if he had a majority, but they would be upset by the next Government of the Left, either Liberal or Socialist. We should be in a worse position than before. We live in s; very different world compared with that which existed before the War. There are tremendous changes of opinion. One day you have a huge majority on one side, and next day, almost, you have a majority on the other.
The proposals in the White Paper represent, I think, the best scheme that can be put forward in the circumstance. It is not a cast-iron scheme, or a reinforced-concrete scheme. It is there to be considered by the best means open to this House. It is to be considered by a Joint Select Committee of both branches of the Legislature. I regard as rather unfortunate the reference which the Minister of Health made to this proposal. Perhaps
I do not know what he means, but I do not think we should approach it from the point of view he seemed to state. We should say, there are our proposals, and we think them the best, but they are open for reconsideration. The Minister of Health is a new recruit to the Conservative party, and perhaps attaches undue importance to the views of the "Morning Post" and those who read it. He was making a speech in Kent where the "Morning Post" is largely read. The Government have put these forward as the best proposals, after years of most careful consideration. It is for others to put up a better plan if they can produce it. I sincerely hope that even, at this last moment, my right hon. Friend may give his really great assistance to find a solution, because the aid he can give is enormous. I do not know anyone in this House who can give more aid.
We talk of Privy Councillors and ex-Cabinet Ministers, but there are only two who really count. They are the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon and my right hon. Friend. He has got immense power and influence, and I beg him to use it, in the cause he has supported throughout his political life—the cause of reconciliation and healing. He has been far more successful in construction than in purely destructive criticism. It is not too late for him to help. Most calamitous rumours are abroad to the effect that he will refuse to have anything to do, directly or indirectly, through his influence, or in any other way, with the Joint Select Committee. I hope that is not true. I think it would be in the highest degree contrary to the public interest. I wish to recall to his mind his words about reconciling the spirit of the Irish people to the British nation, in the same way as Scotland and Wales are reconciled, and that then we might secure a bargain which would repay the troubles of the time. I deny that this scheme is one of sabotage of a long and honourable connection between Great Britain and India. I say it is a renewal of the great trunk line which has always joined the welfare of the peoples of the Indian peninsula to Great Britain.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. I do
not propose to examine the details of the White Paper, but my hon. Friends and I propose to cast our votes against the Motion which the Government have put down; and we do not propose to cast our votes for the Amendment which has been put down by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. In these circumstances, we do not wish to give a silent vote, which might easily be misunderstood both here and in India. I congratulate the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) on his very witty speech. He does not intervene frequently, but, when he does, he is always witty. I think, however, that his speech to-day was largely wasted, because, as we view the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), the speech of the Noble Lord, and the proposals of the Government, we cannot see any such essential difference as need arouse any heat in the Conservative party; nor, indeed, do we see, in the proposals put forward by hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway, any difference that would be sufficient to justify their putting an Amendment on the Paper. They all stand for British Imperialism in India. Hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway speak of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and of bringing India into the British Commonwealth of Nations, but those are the exact words which the Secretary of State used when he was putting the proposals before the House, and all that has been discussed so far is the question of how much England is going to interfere in the affairs of India.
No body—not even the official Opposition—is suggesting that England should not interfere with the affairs of India at all. The right hon. Gentleman suggests a maximum of English interference in Indian affairs. Indians, he says, still need to be led by the hand; they are our children, who have not yet grown up sufficiently to walk by themselves, although we have been their wise parent for 150 years, which is longer than the average infant takes to learn to walk. The right hon. Gentleman would give them a minimum of Indian liberty and a maximum of English interference. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway suggest a minimum of interference, but the Dominion link, and in their Amendment there is no reference to the time factor. The Government position as defined in
the White Paper I should describe as one of "backing it both ways." It would, perhaps, not be regarded as a proper expression if I said that it was an attempt at "double-crossing." Presumably, however, the attitude of the Government is that they want a policy which can either increase the Indian share of self-government or diminish the Indian share of self-government—which can either strengthen or reduce the amount of English interference. We take the attitude quite definitely that England has no right in India at all, and that the one decent thing that England can do for India is to get out.
It has been asserted by many speakers, including the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that during England's period of interference in India many great things have happened in India. It would be difficult to roam the world's surface and find any country where things have not happened in the last 150 years. It would be difficult to find a country anywhere that is farther back to-day than it was 150 years ago. But, if there is one country in the world where the amount of advance is of the most limited nature, that country is India under English rule. The Under-Secretary to-day, in opening the Debate, referred to great hydroelectric schemes fostered and developed by the Government. If I remember aright, the Under-Secretary of State in the Labour Government used to hold that up as our great magnum opus, and also the irrigation schemes. But every country in the world has been developing hydro-electric stations during the last few years, and all the drier countries have been developing their irrigation methods. It is not distinctively English. Ireland has developed hydro-electricity, and I believe it has been done there by German engineers. Surely, we are not going to claim that this particular scientific development, which is taking place in every corner of the world in the natural course, and to which scientists and technicians of all countries have contributed, is something—

Mr. BUTLER: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but my point was that this scheme was developed under the transferred departments under Indian control, working in collaboration with European experts.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. He was, therefore, giving the credit of it to the Indian people themselves—

Mr. BUTLER: Working in collaboration with European experts.

Mr. MAXTON: That is exactly my point. The suggestion is that this wonderful combination of the English and the Indian characters has produced a hydro-electricity system in India. But such a system has been produced in Norway, where it is much more highly developed and efficient; it has been developed in the United States, and in Russia. Therefore, while it would be foolish to say that improvements have not taken place in India in the 150 years during which there has been British occupation, and latterly British government, it would be foolish for us, and it would be a mistake, to pat ourselves on the back and say, "Look what we have done." [An HON. MEMBER: "What about China?"] China is at least in this position, that there has been developed in China during these latter years a real, genuine, militant struggle among the common people for liberty, for modernisation. I see an hon. Member shake his head, but that is my impression, and that is my information with regard to the type of Chinese with whom I am in contact, the man who is struggling there to liberate the people of China; and the fact that there are such men—I read their writings and correspond with them—is an indication to me that the Chinese people, the common people of China, are awakening and alive to the fact that the struggle to-day is not a struggle about constitutions, but a struggle about economic things; that it is not a struggle as between nationalities, but as between classes in the same nationality. That constitutes the superiority of China over India as I see it to-day. It is not much, but it is there, and, in my opinion, it will develop.
I am not giving what will be helpful to the Select Committee when it comes to work. We take the line absolutely that the one thing we can do is to leave India to work out her own salvation. That is described as "scurry," as "cut and run." It is described by all the awkward terms that suggest cowardice and the shirking of responsibility. Describe it in as ugly language as you like. I describe
it as giving human beings, to whom the resources of the civilised world are as open as they are to any one of us here, the responsibility of conducting their own lives and running their own affairs. So far as the White Paper is concerned, the one over-riding criticism that we make is that it is a machine-made Constitution. You can feel it; you can hear the wheels grinding round, the ball-bearings without the proper amount of oil, and all the rest of it. It is cranky. It is the only kind of Constitution that an alien people could make for somebody else. Probably the reason why the South African Constitution did not work, why the Irish Constitution did not work, and why the German Constitution is not working to-day, is that in those Constitutions there is no evidence of an actual outgrowth of the people themselves. The constitutional instrument that is going to express a nation's will has to grow out of that nation's characteristics. It cannot be made in some back room in Whitehall by any civil servant, however skilful.
That brings me to my final point. We want to see the people of India free and independent. We want to see them wiping out the rule of their Princes, their moneylenders, their millionaires. We want to see them on a higher level of comfort and freedom. We want to help them all that we can. But their fight must be their own fight. It must be the fight of the common people of India They must banish from their minds entirely the idea that the getting of any right to govern themselves will remove from them the major problems of poverty and exploitation. They will still have to fight against the economic exploitation which is the real evil from which they suffer. In my view, the age of Imperialism is past. The age of the great magnificent Empires is going. Britain, which has had the longest experience of Imperialism, should be the first to tell the Japanese and others who are struggling now to build an Empire that this idea is greatly over-rated—that there is nothing to it in the long run. It is like the personal riches of the individual, which are more trouble than they are worth. The laying up of large wealth only makes you worry about the moths and the dust.
A promise was given to India in 1917. We said in that Declaration that a
Statutory Commission had to be set up within 10 years. The British Parliament took the whole 10 years, the maximum limit that it was allowed, before it set up that Commission. The Commission did its work in a very leisurely fashion. The House of Commons has taken any amount of time and has had numerous Round Table Conferences to discuss the Report of the Statutory Commission. Now we are setting up a Select Committee. The Simon Commission was set up, I think, in 1927. In 1933 we are getting a White Paper, and now we are passing a Motion to set up a Select Committee and, if I understand the Leaders of the present Government, as I think I do, the instruction to that Select Committee will be, "Do not rush it. There is plenty of time. It is slow, careful, very gradual work. Perhaps by the time you have finished we shall be out of office altogether and another Government will have to take the next step." From 1917 to 1933 the Indian people have been waiting to see the promise of freedom that was given them being realised in fact. To-night again we are shirking responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping is shirking responsibility. He knows that he ought to vote against this proposal now. If he does not mean India to have more liberty, as he does not want India to have more liberty, he ought to vote to-night and not wait until the Select Committee produces something else and it comes before the House of Commons in concrete terms. He ought to show now, and every Member of the House who does not want to proceed along those lines ought to show to-night, as we propose to show, that we are not in favour of the progress to Indian liberty along this route.
From 1917 to 1933, 16 years have already been exhausted and the proposals to-day give at least another five or six years of delay. The Government have plumed themselves on the fact that they have got quietness in India by putting men in gaol. I admit that that always works. In my own experience, when a few leaders are put into gaol the particular movement for which they stand quietens down for the moment, but very shortly there is a rally and they go forward again with greater vigour and with greater anger in their hearts. The movement that I am concerned about is not
that very decent, respectable movement of the Congress led by Mr. Gandhi. The movement that I want to see developed in India is the movement that is represented by the men of Meerut, now locked up for long terms of imprisonment because of their attempt to bring about the beginning of a working-class movement. These men are not being treated al; first-class prisoners. They are being treated as desperate criminals. Not one of them has committed a crime. Their crime was that they dreamt of developing a great working-class movement which would overthrow not merely the British but the rule of the Princes, the rule of the jute magnates, the mineowners and all the great exploiters of the Indian people. That is why they are in gaol, and the movement for which they stand is temporarily still, but it will grow again and, while the Select Committee is quietly and comfortably perambulating along, discussing all the details and taking time about it, trying to make the scheme more perfect, trying to conciliate every possible section and only dissatisfying more sections as they satisfy one, this movement will grow in strength and by the time your legislation is ready I hope, and my friends hope, that it will not be required by the Indian people.

7.37 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: The hon. Member has very clearly explained the views that we all know he supports. I should like to remind him that the Motion before the House is to set up a Select Committee to consider the Government proposals, and not to consider the policy of leaving India, which is a very different matter. The proposals that are coming before the Joint Select Committee are the proposals of the Government policy for establishing rule for the people in India in co-operation with Great Britain.

Mr. MAXTON: I understood that what we were discussing was whether we would or not set up a Select Committee as a means of conferring self-government on India.

Sir R. HAMILTON: To consider the Government proposals.

Mr. MAXTON: As a means of conferring self-government on India.

Sir R. HAMILTON: I was only drawing attention to the fact that the Gov-
ernment proposals do not contain the policy put forward by the hon. Member. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) made a very witty speech, but I think we must all admit that it contained a great deal of very sound sense as well, and, after the way he dealt with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), I do not think it will be necessary for anyone else to touch that subject. This setting up of the Joint Committee definitely marks a stage in the journey an which we have been going, and nothing has astonished me more in the course of this Debate than to observe how much the critics of the Government seem to have forgotten, or to have tried to wipe out from their minds, what has been passing during the last 15 years. I will quote two famous declarations. There was the King's Proclamation in 1919 in which His Majesty declared:
The Act which has now become law entrusts the elected representatives of the people with a definite share in the government and points the way to full responsible government hereafter.
Two years later again by His Majesty in the Instrument of Instructions to the Governor-General:
Above all things it is Our will and pleasure that the plans laid by Our Parliament may come to fruition to the end that British India may attain its due place among our Dominions.
That was at the beginning of our policy at a time when we were only dealing with British India. The road we were travelling on became wider but more difficult to travel when the first Round Table Conference was called and the Princes made their famous declaration that they were ready to come into a federated India. That definitely changed the whole political position, and that policy which was laid down at the first Round Table Conference, was definitely accepted by Parliament, a point which I should like to recall to the memory of the critics of the Government. That policy was accepted only a year ago. Since the first there have been two further sessions of the Round Table Conference which have been considering the general lines of policy. Now we are getting down to the matter of machinery.
There has been a certain amount of criticism directed to various points in the Government proposals. I do not think
this is the occasion to go at length into detailed criticism of the actual proposals. That is definitely the business of the Joint Committee,. The Under-Secretary, in a speech which the whole House enjoyed, made replies to certain criticisms which had been directed against various proposals, and, because I do not make any criticisms now, it must not be thought that I have not several criticisms which no doubt will be developed when the Joint Committee comes to sit and the various points are brought before it for its consideration. Criticism has, of course, been delivered from all angles, and particularly from India, where each interest concerned has naturally looked to see how it would be affected.
I only propose now to make a few remarks on one or two of the broader aspects of the position. I am certainly prepared to give full credit for the honesty of conviction of the critics of the Government. People have very different views on this very difficult question. We all feel the great responsibility that lies upon us, but, when critics of the Government say we are going too fast, we know how the critics of the Government on the other side say we have been going far too slowly, and, after all, the criticism that you are going too fast is the one that always comes from the man who does not want to go forward at all. Then again it is urged that it is too great a risk for us to take. But these are the occasions when we have to take risks and very often, as we all know from our own private affairs, as well as in public affairs, when there is a question of taking a risk or not the safest course generally is to take that risk and I, for one, feel confident that the House and the country will be taking the safest course in taking the risk of all that is involved in endeavouring to set up this great Federation.
The alternative that has been put forward is either to stand still and do nothing or a half-hearted alternative like that put up by the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) to try out responsibility in one or two selected Provinces, quite regardless of the fact that that is an impossibility having regard to the present state of affairs. It could not be put into work, and it has been definitely agreed by the
whole of political opinion in India, and accepted on this side, that we must make an advance both in the Provinces and at the centre together. It should not be forgotten through all these Debates that what was definitely put forward and accepted by the Round Table Conference was a responsibility in the Provinces, responsibility in the centre and a Federation with the Princes in it. That is the policy of the Government. Those are the general lines of it. The Joint Committee will have to consider the particular machinery for giving effect to it.
There are always some people who think that they can keep the pot from boiling over by sitting on the safety valve, they may succeed for a time, but when the explosion comes, as inevitably it will come they will go up with the burst. To the critics in India who complain that we are going too slowly and who are always asking for dates as to when this scheme can be brought into effect, I would say that you cannot give definite dates. Never, I suppose, has a task of such unprecedented magnitude been undertaken, and it would be ridiculous to attempt to give a specific date that on the 1st of such and such a month, of such and such a year, such and such a thing should come into effect. We have to go slowly. We are bound to go slowly in these matters. I hope that although we are bound to go slowly, the Government will always bear in mind the importance of going as fast as possible with safety.
In India a great deal of attention is naturally being centred upon the safeguards. White Papers are never very attractive reading in the style of bright journalism, but this particular White Paper must have been rather gloomy reading to the ardent souls in India who are anxious to see progress made very quickly. They must have felt considerable disappointment when they read the speech of the Secretary of State in that very clear exposition on the first day of the Debate of the proposals of the Government. Apparently every contingency has been thought out and every possible eventuality, and the safeguards are all detailed and written out until they make a most formidable list. It rather reminds me of the man who reads a medical book and sees all the diseases from which he might suffer. He does not feel very well
and he realises from the symptoms what an awful thing life would be with all those diseases around him all the time. We have to remember that there is such a thing as normal health and normal life.
We should ask our Indian friends on the other side not to regard these safeguards not as the normal exercise of authority by Great Britain in India, but rather as the necessities—which they have agreed are necessities—which should be included in the Constitution, but which, as responsibility is exercised by Indian Ministers and as the sense of responsibility grows, will inevitably and properly fade further and further into the background. The transitional period to which the Indians attach so much importance must depend upon the amount of success which the working of the Constitution will achieve, and in order to achieve success they must remember that it depends upon co-operation with us. It is only this country which can give India what it really wants, and it is by cooperation with us that they will best achieve success and shorten the transitional period.
The point which we are reaching now is really the most difficult one. We are getting away from the vaguer lines of policy and getting down to the hard facts of the position. It is no use blinking difficulties. We have to look at the difficulties, and we have to face them. Though Parliament may be legally and technically responsible, the responsibility is, after all, a joint one between India and ourselves. On this particular point, I hope that we may have some fuller information than we have had so far as to the position which the representatives from India who are to be called into consultation with the Joint Committee will occupy in that committee. The Under-Secretary of State to-day made a slight reference to the matter in his opening speech, but I hope the position will be made very much more clear than it is at present. We all know, and some of us regret most deeply, the mistake which was made some years ago in not associating the Indians who will be responsible for the working of the future Constitution more closely with our Statutory Commission. I hope most sincerely that we shall not do anything in the way of repeating that mistake when it comes to the work of the Joint Select Committee. As a matter of fact, I know that that
point is very much in the minds of leading statesmen in India. It would reassure public opinion in India very greatly if it could be pointed out, and pointed out with authority, that those Indians who will be invited to consult with Members of Parliament in this country will have a joint responsibility with them, although the legal and technical responsibility may rest on Parliament, and that their responsibility will obtain with that of the Joint Select Committee in helping to set the machinery of the Constitution which they, after all, will have to work.
I should like to refer the House to a Joint Select Committee which has only recently sat and of which I had the honour to be a member. That Joint Select Committee was appointed to consider proposals made by the Government with reference to closer union in East Africa. The Government put before that committee very definite proposals and very definite policy, but at the end of two or three months, after very close consideration and after the calling of a number of witnesses from Africa, the committee very materially modified the proposals of the Government in a great many directions. I would remind the House that it is in the Joint Select Committee that the machinery which is proposed is to be most closely examined, and not only is it to be most closely examined, but it is to be altered, where the Committee thinks that it should be altered, in the interests of the future Constitution which is hoped to set up. I am sure that, although the Government are not bound to accept the proposals of the Joint Select Committee, any proposals which are put up by that committee after full consideration with the representatives of India can hardly be ignored by any Government which may be in power.
The Secretary of State has had to steer a difficult course. He has done it with a balanced judgment, very considerable skill and great caution, but I would like him to have a little more faith, or to show a little more faith and courage, in his actions and-let people outside believe, as we believe, that he is acting in the full interests, both of England and of India, and that he is acting with a faith and courage which will prevent this enterprise of great faith and moment being turned awry and losing the very
name of action. If we need courage ourselves as a nation to act greatly in this great enterprise, courage will no less be needed by the Princes and peoples of India to make mutual concessions for the common good and to act in co-operation with us, for by that means alone can a lasting foundation for a federated India be laid.

7.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WALTER SMILES: I find myself in agreement with much that was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), but I am not in agreement with the point which he made that the Indians must be associated with the report of the Joint Select Committee. I think that that is a responsibility by which the committee alone must stand or fall. I hope that the hon. Member will pardon me if I do not follow him any further into his arguments because time is short, and I have been asked to compress my speech into the smallest possible time. I listened to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and I am sure that if we had had him with us on the Assam Legislature Council his eloquence would have converted every non-co-operator on that council. After that we listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and his eloquence, I dare say, would turn the whole lot of the council then into non-co-operators instead.
I want to give the House a few facts, for, after all, a pound of fact is really worth a ton of theory. The only three matters to which I particularly want to call attention are, the cotton trade, opium, and oil. We know the history of the Fiscal Convention in 1919. We heard the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson) and the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) discussing this question and the reasons for the tariff conventions last night. We also know that the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms have been expensive, and the new reforms which are coming will be more expensive, though not possibly as expensive as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) made out when he said that the cost of election to a candidate might be £10,000. I think he might divide that by five or more and then be nearer being accurate.
However, these schemes are very expensive, and I want to point out to the House who pays for some of the reforms at the present time. You have only to go as far as Lancashire and see in front of the Employment Exchanges the queues of weavers and spinners who are out of work. Those are some of the people who are now paying for the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. Look down the list of bankruptcies in Lancashire during the past two or three years and you will see the number of cotton mills. Those are some of the people who have paid for the reforms. Only last week the matter was forcibly brought home to me. On Thursday last I was in my constituency and met a, friend who owned five or six mills and who had gone bankrupt about six weeks before. He said to me: "You know the reason why I have gone bankrupt." I said: "I suppose it is the usual thing—bad trade, and you took on too many commitments." "No," he said, "it is not that. It is the 25 per cent. import duty into India." After his examination in bankruptcy that man was discharged without a stain of any kind upon his character, and I understand that at the present moment the people in his town are subscribing money in order to put him into business again. He has a very high character indeed. Those Lancashire weavers and spinners and the people who own the mills are the people who are having to pay for those reforms.
When old Boudhoo, up in Assam, buys his wife a new saree, he cannot, owing to these duties get as good value as he used to get. Little Phulmonie, his wife, when she takes her clothes on the Sunday morning down to the stream to wash them, lifting them over her head and beating them on the stones, does not understand why the clothes only stand two or three washes now compared with what they used to do. It is because she is not getting as good value for her money as before. The spinners and weavers in Lancashire, and these poor people in India who wears the clothes, are paying now for the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said that the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms had failed. In many things I agree with him, but, as a humble member of the Assam Legislative Council for six years who had the privilege of trying to work these reforms, I say definitely that they have not failed.
Most certainly they have not failed in Assam.
It is our duty to explain to our constituents what is going to happen under the new reforms. In 1919, when the Convention went through, every Lancashire Member knew what would happen to the cotton trade of Lancashire, and he explained it to his constituents. If they did not do so, they had not much foresight, or else they were dishonest. It is our duty now as Lancashire Members to explain the present position to our constituents. We were not responsible for what happened in 1919, but we are taking a new step to-day, and it is our duty to explain all its implications to our electors. I am one of those who fear the Princes, even though they are supposed to be bringing the gift of constitutional stability at the Centre. There are a few questions that I should like to put to the Under-Secretary. What is going to happen in regard to the Customs Duties in those Indian States that are on the sea coast? It may be said that that is a Committee question. On many of these points that I find difficult I am told that they are Committee questions. It is because I am trying to speak on matters that are worrying 'me that I am putting these questions to the Under-Secretary. I must confess that I almost agreed with many things that he said to-day in his speech. Is it intended to let off any of the States from the tribute which they now pay to the Central Indian Government, as a, bribe to make them come into Federation? Some of these States pay a very heavy tribute now. Is it intended to let them off?
The other question is a big question, namely, that of opium, and it concerns us very much in Assam. The right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) said yesterday that we were discussing these big constitutional questions, and he asked where is the Member for Madras? Where is the Member for the -United Provinces? I claim, here and now, to be the Member for Assam. If my old friends and fellow members of the Assam Legislative Council were listening to me now I would say exactly what I am about to say. I am very worried about the question of opium. What about the two States of Malwa and Udaipur? Much of their revenue comes from the growing of opium, which is sent contraband into
Assam. Opium is not a western vice. I am ashamed, as an Assamese, to say that opium is a weakness of some of my friends in Assam. Everybody there, official and non-official, European and Indian, from the decent Naga, who may steal your dog to take it home for his Christmas dinner, down to the holy Gossains at Majuli, all have tried their best to stamp out the curse of opium, but they are being hampered by some of the native States. What are you going to do when the federation comes? Are you going to prevent Malwa and Udaipur from growing opium and ruining the people of Assam? They have made an honest attempt there to shut down this vice.
When a Finance Committee was sent out to India they found that Assam was a deficit province. They found that we were 38 lakhs down during the last three years, simply because we had lost revenue from opium. That is why we claim something in return. Is there any report of opium smuggling into Assam? If so, has it been shown to the Assam Legislative Council, because my friends who write to me from Assam have never seen it. The Finance Committee which found that Assam was a deficit province suggested giving us a subvention. It is not a subvention that they want, it is not charity that they want, but justice. There are two provinces in India which produce oil, the Punjab and Assam. I exclude Burma, because I anticipate that there will be a separation of that province from India. When I make remarks about Assam oil I am making no accusation against the Burma Oil Company. I am not financially interested in that company. They have done an enormous amount of good work for the people of India, they have supplied revenue for the Government and cheap kerosene oil for the people. At the present time the Central Government draws 110 lakhs a year from the Assam oil, and the estimate of the Finance Committee is that Assam's deficit may be as much as 92 lakhs a year. That is why Assam asks that half the excise duty on oil should be transferred to the Assam Budget. I have the support of every Member of the Assam Legislative Council in that claim. I daresay the Under-Secretary has seen some of the debates that took place during the past month
on that subject. I received the reports last night.
At the present time Assam is a very backward Province. We have more lepers in Assam than there are in any Province in India, and the facilities for treating leprosy are much less than in any other Province. We have a smaller number of roads per person or per square mile than any other Province in India. We have no High Court or University, and there is no women's hospital in the whole of Assam. The Under-Secretary may say that it is a mere matter of luck that Assam found oil within its boundary. Is it also luck that the disease of kala-hazar is prevalent in Assam and not in other Provinces in India? It is worse than malaria, though perhaps not as bad as yellow fever, but it has absolutely decimated the Province in the past. They have had to spend lakhs of rupees in trying to stamp out kala-hazar there. Therefore, it is justifiable for Assam to claim to receive one-half of the excise duty on oil. Assam produces oil and Bengal produces jute. What about the export duty on jute? You are going to give one-half of that export duty to Bengal. What are the records of Assam and Bengal? Have we in Assam any murders like the two which took place at Chittagong? Have we anything like the murder of Mr. Lohman, the superintendent of police, or the murder of the political officer in Hill-Tipperah and of the two Deputy-Commissioners in Midnapore—all in Bengal? Are the Government going to act as the British Government acted in the South of Ireland, where they let down the Loyalists Are they going to deny justice to Assam whilst they bribe probably the most disloyal Province in India, Bengal I hope that the Under-Secretary, who is steeped in Indian tradition, will see that there is fair play for our Province of Assam.
There is an idea prevalent in this House that every Province in India immediately wants to jump into the Federation. I will quote from a short extract from "The Sylhet Chronicle"
If Assam cannot come up to the level of the other provinces she will be a weak spot in the Federation, and it should be the interests of the Federation to see each unit strong enough to march along in perfect equality. Otherwise Federation or
autonomy would be a curse to Assam, and the last thing we would desire would be a Federation which would break down under its very weight.
That is a quotation from an Assam newspaper and shows what they think about Federation. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that the whole of India is anxious immediately to jump to the idea of Federation as being necessary at the present time. You must have the provinces financially independent before you can make certain of having successful Federation. I do not believe in subventions, but I believe in justice. Remarks have been made about Lord Irwin's statement on Dominion status at the end of 1929. I have never seen anything wrong in that statement. I believe that the ultimate goal of India is Dominion status within the British Empire, and I hope that we all agree that our ultimate goal will be that. It may not come in my lifetime, but probably it will come in the lifetime of the Tinder-Secretary, who has told us that he belongs to another generation. However, it will not come for some lime. If the provinces are successful in their autonomy, I wish them God-speed towards the early fulfilment of their ultimate destiny, but I want to see their autonomy proved success first.
The Simon Commission report has been rescued to-day from the bottom of the waste-paper basket. I should like the members of the Joint Select Committee to rescue some other papers. There is one paper for which I was partly responsible, namely, the report of the Select Committee 'appointed by the Assam Legislative Council to co-operate with the Statutory Commission. There are also reports there from the various Provincial Governments. It is not every Government or every committee that recommended the immediate transfer of the police. In Madras both recommended transfer, in Assam both Government and Committee recommended transfer, but in the Punjab the Government recommended only the transfer with safeguards. In Bombay the committee advised that the police should be a reserved subject for the present, and in Bengal the Government also said that it must be reserved. It is not true to suggest that every province advised the immediate transfer of the police. Conditions in every province are not the same.
I fear for justice when communal differences are in question. I quote now from the Bihar and Orissa Report, page 576, Vol. III. of Statutory Commission:
Specially deplorable is it that owing to the fact that the accused was of one community and the gazetted officer and the head clerk were of another, a communal favour was recklessly imparted into the case; and thereupon so many Government clerks and peons, all belonging to the community of the accused, covertly perjured themselves without scruple in support of the egregiously false and cruel defence evolved that the embezzler had made over the money to the head clerk, a Muslim, and the Hindu magistrate had not only rejected the simple and straightforward case of the Crown.
That is the judgment of Justice Macpherson, and it can be seen in the report of the Statutory Commission. There was also an incident in Assam which I remember quite well, you will see it quoted on page 255, Volume XIV of the Statutory Commission's report. It happened during the time of the search for terrorist arms. Every one admits that it is not the non-co-operators who are murderous; it is the terrorists, the people who are actuated by Bolshevism, and such a menace does exist in India. A Mohammedan sub-inspector went searching a house for arms and during the search the Koran was torn. There was a tremendous outcry and for six years it went on in the Assam Legislative Council. Eventually the council passed a resolution that the sub-inspector of police should be immediately dismissed. It may be a Mohammedan sub-inspector to-day; but who may it be to-morrow? It may be an inspector general of police. The Legislative Council will want the Governor to dismiss; and he will be placed therefore in a difficult position. That is one of the possibilities which may face any Governor in future.
Another question, to which the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme referred, is the constituencies for labourers. I am thinking now about the tea-garden labourers, about one million of them in Assam, to whom there has been allotted four seats. It will take you nearly a week to get from one end of the Province of Assam to the other, and if you even divide the province into quarters it will be extremely difficult to fill these positions by popular election. I suggest that the Joint Select Committee should consider allowing some
form of nomination to the Governor. In the original report of the Assam Committee we advised that five seats should be in the nomination of the Government, so that if the depressed class, or any other class, did not get representation they would be able to get such representation through the Governor's nomination. One point we had in view was, of course, the representation of women. We then recommended adult suffrage and open voting, and I remember discussing these questions with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and the late Mr. Vernon Hartshorn. They said that it was a sensible proposal, but that they did not think the British Houses of Parliament would ever agree to open voting. At any rate, I have an open mind on this subject, and am prepared to change my mind now. We cannot afford to break any pledges, although the Secretary of State has said that so far no pledges have been made. I remember an Irishman, Mr. O'Donovan, speaking in the Legislative Assembly in Delhi about terrorism. A Bengali Swarajist later said that there were only two races in the world who really understood politics, one the Bengalis and the other the Irish. I notice that Mr. Patel is taking his postgraduate course in politics in Dublin. I should feel much more comfortable if he had chosen another university, and taken his post-graduate course at Stormont Castle with Lord Craigavon in Northern Ireland.
I should like to see a certain amount of elasticity in the Constitution. After all, the provinces, before they transfer the police or join the Federation, should have a chance of deciding the matter for themselves. If you make your own bed do not complain about the lumps in the mattress it is said, but one should also have a chance of choosing one's own bedfellow. Only the Princes and Burma are given any option, and I can foresee a small province like Orissa being overlaid and suffocated by her neighbours, Bengal and Madras, and my own province of Assam, at another corner of the map, having the bed clothes' stolen by Bombay, and being left in the financial cold. Some latitude should be given to all the provinces to decide whether they will come in or not. The Lord President of the Council who leads the Conservative party may say that it is easy enough to vote
for your leader when you agree with him, but what I am sure he wants is people who will vote with him even when they do not agree with him. There have been cases where we have voted with our leader although we did not agree with him; the Statute of Westminster Act, the London Passenger Transport Bill, the £4,500,000 to Austria, and last, but not least, beer. We feel extremely glad that the Motion has been so framed that we can vote in the Government Lobby tonight.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. E. T. CAMPBELL: The Secretary of State for India in his epoch making explanatory speech on Monday made it possible for all reasonable minded Members of the House to vote for the setting up of the Joint Select Committee, with the Government proposals as the terms of reference. I was in the East when the Montagu-Chelmsford agreements were made. I deplored them then, and I have deplored them ever since, but I would remind hon. Members that the people who made the Montagu-Chelmsford agreements are the people responsible for the proposals of the Government now before the House. The responsibility, therefore, to a great extent is taken out of our hands, although the responsibility for the future is entirely in our hands. We have, therefore, to proceed with due caution. The White Paper is not perfect although in general I approve of it.
I shall have some criticisms to offer for the consideration of the Joint Select Committee. I take it that this is the only opportunity we shall have of expressing our views, and I hope that the Joint Select Committee when they meet will go through the OFFICIAL REPORT, and read the various speeches which have been made so that any suggestions that are made with a view to improving matters will be taken into consideration. I would remind the House of the advice given to the purchaser of a new motor car. Run it slowly for the first few hundred miles, keep the engine and gears well oiled, and the brakes well adjusted. In this instance we must bear in mind too that the machine is to be made suitable for a tropical country and will be driven by Indians, with a gradually decreasing number of Englishmen. We must take care not to get rid of the skilled English mechanics too soon.
A great deal of the success of this scheme depends upon Viceroys and Governors. We have had some very excellent Viceroys and Governors, and we have had some who have been less wise or tactful or strong. But, generally speaking, I maintain that our Governors have been some of the finest men that this country has ever sent out. There are as good fish in the sea as ever came out of it, and when one looks around this House and the other House, and imagines some of the young men as future Governors or Viceroys, I feel every confidence that these gentlemen will be just as capable as any of their predecessors.
Then we have the Indian Civil Service and the police, two of the finest Services in the world, with some of the best products of this country in them. I regret deeply the nasty insinuations cast upon them this afternoon by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), an insinuation which he did not even withdraw when he was asked to do so. When his remarks reach India they will cause a great deal of harm and heart-burning among some of the finest men—I have amongst them my own relations—who have served this country well and have served India equally well. The Civil Service and the police will be indispensable for many years, especially in the agricultural districts, if the new Constitution is to succeed, and perhaps even more so now than before. On page 36, paragraph 72 of file White Paper it says that a statutory inquiry with regard to their future equipment will be held in five years after the Act commences. I hope that the Joint Select Committee will not agree to that proposal. If an inquiry must be held, do not let us tie it down to any particular date. The fact that we were tied down to the Statutory Commission after 10 years of the Montagu-Chelmsford scheme has put us into the difficulties in which we are to-day. We feel that there is a moral obligation on us to go forward. This is a result of the Montagu-Chelmsford Report stipulating that we were compelled in 10 years time to appoint a Royal Commission.
I have been asked to state the views of the European Association of India, after a preliminary investigation of the proposals contained in the White Paper. These have been received in this country by telegram within the last 48 hours. The European Association consists of
some 8,000 members, who form a large proportion of the European population in India. The Association gives its full general support to the proposals. They say that the proposals represent a very great advance, but the British in India have, from the outset, believed that such an advance was necessary, and that it would prove to be not only in the best interests of India but of the Empire, provided arrangements could at the same time be made to localise and isolate the results either of inexperience or of perversity on the part of any of the new authorities to be set up in India.
With regard to the police, the European Association states that it should be made implicit in the Bill that every head of department will have the right of direct access to the Governors, who will remain as heads of the Executive. This is especially necessary in the case of the Inspector-General of the Police, and the Police Department. With regard to the Services the European Association is of opinion that the new Governments will be far more dependent on the efficient administration of the district officer than the old bureaucratic system was. Owing to their impartiality and efficiency the Indian Civil and police services are respected by Indians and Europeans alike.
With regard to European representation, the Association complains of the insufficient representation of the British, who bring to the Legislatures qualities which are the result of generations of experience of Indian administration. This is a very important subject and I hope that it will have the special attention of the Select Committee. The Association finally suggests that power should be taken in the Act to enable the Federal Government to establish its own police force, to which the Association attaches great importance.
While supporting the Government whole-heartedly in its endeavour to formulate a sound scheme in fulfilment of our obligations to India, I have ventured to put forward some constructive criticism for the consideration of the Joint Select Committee. I trust that the Government will have the help of all sections of the House in producing a really first-class Measure, so that when the Act is entered upon the Statute Book it may be acceptable to all reasonable people in India. The more unanimous we are in this country the greater the
chance of success in India; and the reverse is equally true. I would warn some of my hon. Friends against taking the right hon. Member for Epping too seriously. I regret that he is not in the House, because I do not like making uncomplimentary remarks when the person concerned is not here. Perhaps someone will draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what I say, and he can tell me what he thinks of it afterwards. I would not like anyone to be led away by the right hon. Gentleman's oratory. I admit him to be the most brilliant speaker in the House, and the most attractive, but hardly the most sincere, consistent or reliable. I read the following in a weekly illustrated last week—the article was not pro-Government either:
Even Mr. Churchill's denunciation of the Government's Indian policy is 10 or 12 years late. He may thunder, but he can do little. He is handicapped by his own past; and however much he talks in private—and is he entirely circumspect?—he knows in his heart of hearts that be cannot bring the Government down.
A few weeks ago the right hon. Member for Epping was tackling the Government on their unemployment policy, last week on their foreign policy, and to-day it is India. In a few weeks, when the Budget proposals are being debated, it may be beer, or perhaps the right hon. Gentleman prefers cider. The Government have a difficult task. Do not let us allow mere oratory, based on personal animosity and ambition, to turn us from our duty to India.

8.33 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will be unduly abashed when he reads the rather censorious remarks just passed upon him by my hon. Friend. I hold no brief for the right hon. Member for Epping. I am not a member of the India Defence Committee. I was not asked to join it, and I have no intention of joining it, but I think that any hon. Member who has heard my right hon. Friend's speeches to-day and on former occasions, however much he may disagree with the right hon. Member for Epping, does him less than justice if any doubt is expressed as to his sincerity. In the short time at my disposal I wish only to touch on two or three points in regard to this tremendous question. First of all, I wish to touch
on what the Secretary of State said on Monday. I refer to a statement that I heard with great relief, that the pledges of the past leave full liberty to Parliament as to the time and manner of constitutional advance. But with all humility I find it difficult to understand my right hon. Friend's farther statement that the continuous history of the last century puts upon us the moral obligation to grant further stages of constitutional progress.
It is so important that we should be clear as to the groundwork of facts in discussing this question, that I feel bound to ask the Secretary of State to remember that the only pledge given to India in the last century was that contained in Queen Victoria's Proclamation of 1858, which had no relation whatever to self-government, but admitted Indians to offices in the various Services, subject to their being qualified in education, ability and integrity. When we come to the 20th century we find that when Lord Morley was piloting through the House of Lords the reforms known by his name, he made an emphatic declaration to the effect that if they were to be regarded as leading to Parliamentary government he would have nothing to do with them. So, we find no pledge whatever given by Government or Parliament, in regard to progressive self-government in India, until we come to the Declaration of 1917 and the Act of 1919. No one wishes to go back upon on or to weaken the pledges contained in the 1919 Act, but I need hardly remind hon. Members that the Preamble to that Act contained some very important provisos. There was a proviso that self-government could only be achieved by successive stages; that development was to be gradual; that the time and manner of each advance could be determined only by Parliament and that the action of Parliament in such matters must be guided by the cooperation received from those on whom new opportunities for service were being conferred, and the extent to which it was found that confidence could be reposed in their sense of responsibility.
I remember that in the Debates on the Government's former White Paper, in December, 1931, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) specifically asked the Secretary of State if those qualifications
would still stand, in the new proposals then under discussion. He received a specific assurance from the Secretary of State that they would, and, on receipt of that assurance, the hon. Baronet said he would recommend his friends to vote for the Government's White Paper. The first feature of this new White Paper, from which to my very great regret, as a loyal Conservative and Unionist, I find myself obliged to dissent is that the whole of the 1919 Act is to be swept away and with it goes the whole proviso of which I have just reminded the House. This seems to be equivalent to launching a boat on a rough and largely uncharted sea, without the rudder by which hitherto it had been steered. It seems to me a tremendously important feature of the White Paper and it is one to which little attention seems so far to have been devoted.
I now come to the statement of my right hon. Friend that every responsible public man in India believes that Western institutions, and particularly British institutions, are suited to Indian development. He rightly points out that this view is due to our teaching. I do not wish to dispute the truth of that statement but, taken by itself, it is incomplete. It leaves out of account the fact that responsible men, or, to put it more widely, the whole of the politically-minded classes in India are a small section of the population of that vast country. Because illiteracy is so widespread and such a large part of the population live in remote scattered country villages, the desire for Western institutions is very much less general than is sometimes supposed.
Only a week or two ago, a man who has recently retired after 35 years service as a district officer and afterwards as a commissioner in the North of India, told me of the great difficulty he found in getting the people of his area to understand the power which they could exercise through the possession of a vote for the district board. He instanced the fact that when a road had been swept away by the floods, the district board received a grant of £75,000 from the provincial Government; that, somehow or other, that money disappeared into the pockets of someone connected with the board, and nothing was spent on the road. It was w ell-known that the money
had been misappropriated but all the same it was impossible to bring home to the people the fact, that they had the power to turn out the board by their votes, although it had proved itself dishonest, and the people still came to the district commissioner to ask him to put the road right.
I do not think you could have a more striking instance of the difficulty which many of the country people in India have in realising what public institutions mean and what power they can wield through the exercise of the vote. I believe that if one could ask them, one would find that what the masses in India want, before all things, are security, impartial justice, and protection from the moneylender, or sometimes even, I am told, from certain minor Indian officials. These are, after all, fundamental things which everybody wants. They are things which we all want for our protection in our daily lives. But I find it difficult to believe that the demand for Western institutions is nearly as widespread in India as is sometimes suggested. Quite recently, a well-known Englishman who knows India well and has been visiting the West and South of India, has written that both the classes and the masses there have never been more appreciative of the British than now when they fear their abdication "in response to an imaginary demand."
I would next refer to the statement of my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that trade depends on good will. We must all agree that you cannot make people buy from you, but there may be occasions on which people want to buy from you but cannot do so because of intimidatory action, and we know that that is exactly what has been taking place in India. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Blackburn (Sir W. Smiles) speaking out of his great personal knowledge of Indian life told us how the people of Assam want to buy Lancashire cloth because they find it more durable. Only two or three weeks ago a partner in an important British firm in India told some of us Conservative Members of the difficulties which his firm had had to meet in recent years owing to various boycotts organised by the Congress party. In view of the wording of the Labour party's Amendment it is interesting to recall that he told us of one boycott which
ended when Mr. Gandhi was arrested. When it ended, the dealers who had been afraid to do business with his firm during its progress resumed business at once. Then Mr. Gandhi was released and the dealers came to this firm—a very important firm, long established in India and employing a large number of Indians—and said: "We thought you were mad before, but we never thought you were as mad as this." The boycott started again; shops were picketed, people were beaten, cloth was burned and the dealers were unable to buy. The workers employed by the firm said: "We do not like Congress but if you will not protect us from Congress we must give them false allegiance."
This gentleman went on to read to us a document which had been sent to all firms—I believe both Indian and British—in India two years ago, requiring them to sign humiliating pledges. One pledge was to the effect that they should not in any way interest themselves in the importation of foreign yarn or piece-goods; another was that they would pass as far as possible all their insurance, banking, and shipping to Indian companies or bankers; and a third was that no person connected with the management of the mills would participate in any activity organised voluntarily or at the instance or on behalf of the British Government in India in opposition to the National movement. We understood that this firm had resisted signature of this humiliating document for six months, but as the boycott cost them some 50 lakhs, they were obliged to sign, and I believe that that was the case with most other British firms in India. It is interesting to know that the organiser of that boycott was Mr. Jawarharlal Nehru, who is at present in gaol in the United Provinces, but who would be liberated if the hon. Members opposite were able to carry their Amendment.
I have had other indications that Indians want to buy our goods if only they are left alone. The ex-Commissioner to whom I have referred told me how, in one town in which a great deal of cloth is accustomed to be sold, even in the height of the boycott Lancashire cloth was coming in. The dealers could not buy it openly in the big towns, as it would be too risky, but they bought it in the lesser towns. They could not
bring it in through the front door, or place it in the front of their shops, but they brought it in by the back door and sent it away to the hills on mules. We have the specific statement of Sir Charles Innes some years ago that if the rural masses were in a position to make their voices heard in the Assembly he would not be bringing forward proposals for a tariff against Lancashire goods, nor would the Assembly give them a hearing.
It seems to me that these are facts which we have to keep clearly in mind and to realise that what we have to do is to give effective protection against intimidation and boycott, which have cost Lancashire so dear in the last few years, which must have caused so much loss to many workers and traders in India, and which, after all, are only designed to put money into the pockets of the mill-owners who finance the Congress party. If that is so, if what is needed is to allow good will to operate and show itself where it exists, surely we must think most carefully before we hand over the police, as is proposed in the White Paper. It. is true that my right hon. Friend proposes to make arrangements which will safeguard the conditions of service for police officers, and that is most important matter, but in tae, same breath he told us that the police would work under the Ministers. That might very well mean working under men whom they had arrested in the last year or two, and, knowing the strength of communal feeling and of Congress feeling and the way in which this has already shown itself, can we feel confident that men who may have had to arrest these Congress leaders will really be sure of a fair deal and be able to carry out their duties effectively when they are working under the men whom perhaps they have put in gaol and who belong to one of the rival communities?
In this matter of the transfer of the police, the situation to-day is very different from what it was when the Statutory Commission recommended the transfer. When that report came out, in the summer of 1930, we had heard little or nothing of the maltreatment and intimidation to which the police were subjected during the whole of the civil disobedience movement. We had heard little of the "Red Shirt" movement, which I believe has behind it Communist influence, in the North-West Frontier Pro-
vince. Speaking for myself, I can say that I understood that communal feeling was dying out. I had heard of the Luck-now Pact, and I believed that that still held the field; and it is only since the terrible happenings at Cawnpore two years ago that some of us have realised that communal feeling, far from dying out, is much stronger than it was some years ago. I am afraid there seems to be general agreement that it has been revived by the reforms which we have given, which have given Hindus and Moslems a political prize for which to contest, and I am told by those who have spent their lives in India that communal feeling is likely to be further exacerbated, if responsibility is given at the centre, because the prize for which to compete will be so very much greater.
Finally, there has been a recrudescence in Bengal of the terrorist campaign. Those who read Sir Charles Tegart's speech will realise the new and terrible factors which have come to light since the Simon Commission reported—

Mr. ATTLEE: All those matters were very fully before the Statutory Commission in India.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Some of those conditions may have existed before the commission reported, but if the hon. Member will read Sir Charles Tegart's admirable speech, to which I referred, he will see that at the time that the commission reported terrorism in Bengal had died down. Sir Charles now tells us of. a third terrorist campaign, and the most formidable, because it is aimed specifically at Government servants, which has been revived since the commission's report. It was also difficult, when the commission reported in June, 1930, for them to have heard very much about the maltreatment of the police, which went on some months later than that. Equally, the "Red Shirt" movement was, I believe, in its infancy, and certainly the Cawnpore massacre, to which I also referred, had not taken place. The Cawnpore massacre was in March, 1931, whereas the commission reported in June, 1930. I do not doubt that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues took the fullest possible account of all the facts that were before them, but I do not think they can deny that at the time when they reported things were distinctly quieter than they have been since, and that a great deal
of water has flowed under the bridges since they reported, to make us realise with what serious trouble the police often have to contend.
In conclusion, I know the point of view is held by some Members that if Parliament did not make all the changes for which the Indians in the Round Table Conference have asked, a difficult situation might arise, a situation with which it might be very difficult to deal. I am authorised by a distinguished military officer, General Sir John Shea, who has lately retired after many years' service in India, during the last years of which he commanded the Eastern Command, to say that the actual military problem under present conditions, in his view, does not present any difficulty; and that view has also been confirmed to me by an officer who has now left India after many years' responsible service in the police. It seems to me that these are opinions which we are bound to weigh and to place against the facile expressions of defeatism that we too often hear expressed. Statements of that kind, made by men who have been responsible for the maintenance of the public peace in their different ways, over a large part of India for many years, seem to me to represent a background or solid bedrock on which we can take our stand and consider what is best for India. Therefore, I hope that Members of the Joint Select Committee in their deliberations will not only feel that they are absolutely free of any Parliamentary pledges, except those contained in the 1919 Act, to discuss this matter, but that they will feel that it is possible to consider what is best for the welfare of the masses of the people of India, sure that the prestige of the Government in India is sufficient to make it unnecessary through panic or loss of confidence to give measures which we might not think at the present moment to be in the interest of the people of India.

8.56 p.m.

Major COURTAULD: I have no personal knowledge of India whatever. My feelings are formed entirely on speeches of men who are better informed than I am, by reading books and articles, and especially by listening in private conversations to men who have spent a great part of their lives in India. For that reason I would not have ventured to
intervene in the Debate unless I had felt that there were a good many hon. Members in the same position. I am cheered to think that even the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has only a somewhat distant and nodding acquaintance with the great subcontinent. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is, of course, in a different category, because, if I am not mistaken, he was born there. Apart from that, I think that there are a few important considerations which occur to one on examining this problem on a wider basis altogether, and which do not need an intimate knowledge of the life of the country itself. The first thing that occurred to me in looking at the White Paper was to ask how much hope of success is there for any hard-and-fast, cut-and-dried constitution written out beforehand and implanted on a nation like India?
If my knowledge of history, which is rather sketchy, does not deceive me, I think that there has been no case where a country has had a written constitution planted on it, entirely hard-and-fast and not susceptible to very great changes, which has in the long run not proved unsuccessful. We know that the United States of America has a written constitution, and I think that very few people would say that that constitution has never given any trouble. In fact, in a time of stress and stringency that constitution, if not in abeyance, has been considerably modified; indeed, quite unconstitutional powers will probably soon be in the hands of one man. Italy, I believe, had a written constitution which failed. Germany certainly had, and we know where that constitution is to-day. When I think of all those failures in countries which are comparatively homogeneous and nothing like as large in area or in population as India, it appears to me that to expect to hope that a constitution such as the Government have worked out will succeed is to hope for something which is very nearly impossible.
I have nothing particular to say against this Constitution as set forth in the White Paper. I think that members of the Government, with no doubt admirable assistance, have probably made as good a case as they can, but I do not think that all the jurists and theorists in
the world are capable of making a constitution which is so rigid, so hard-and-fast, so good and inelastic, as to be successful in the long run. There is another point, into which I need not go very deeply, as time is short, which has been raised by other Members. Are we justified in hoping that a form of self-government on Western democratic lines is likely to be successful in India? It has not of late been very successful in the West, and one country after another finds itself groping about trying to find an alternative. It is, of course, arguable that the mere fact that democracy or democratic government is unsuccessful in the West, makes it more likely, owing to the great difference between West and East, that it might be successful in the East. I have not heard that argument by any spokesman on the other side, and I hardly think that it is an argument that can be supported. I do not take it any further, but it ought to give us pause, for deliberately to try and give India a democratic government on Western lines is taking a risk which may be justifiable, but it is no doubt a risk.
Another point, which is, to my mind, the most important of all, is this. In all the speeches I have heard, in all the documents which I have read, and in nearly all the statements inside the House and without, there is hardly any mention made of the effect of these proposed changes on the great masses of the Indian people. One would have thought that that was, or should be, the very first consideration in any change of government. After all, the only justification for a change in government, or the most important justification, is that the present government is not succeeding and that you are quite sure that your alternative will be better for the people—not for the people who are to govern, but for the people who are to be governed. I read the other day a pamphlet by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State addressed, I think, to his constituents, which was very clear and set forth his case in great detail. I read it through twice, and I could find no reference to that important subject at all except that he said that the politically-minded minority were clamouring for a change of government and for self-government, and that as far as he could tell the 'majority of the illiterate population seemed tacitly to accept it. How,
being dumb, they manifested their acceptance of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not know. I rather suspect that no step has been made to find out what is really the opinion of 90 per cent. of the population, and that if any attempt were made to find out it would be unsuccessful, because probably they would not be able to understand the implications.
I know that there are hon. Members—we have heard them during the Debate, and they are mostly Liberals—who think that the blessings of the ballot box will compensate for anything else, and that if 7 per cent., or whatever the number is, are permitted at stated intervals to put a little voting paper into a painted box, their feeling of privilege and uplift and so on will make them blind to any possible disadvantages in their ordinary life. I do not agree with that view; I never did. I do not think that the man who invented the ballot box had the last word in human progress. I think that there is something more than that. I really believe that although it is absolutely necessary to consider the view of a small politically-minded minority, who, if they feel strongly and like to agitate can make so much trouble that government becomes difficult—although we have got to consider the politically-minded minority and try to give gradually some form of self-government for the Indian. continent, yet to consider only the view of the politician and the vocal minority and to ignore the welfare and the ordinary well-being of the masses of the population is entirely wrong. It may be politics, but to my mind, it is not statesmanship.
We are told, and have been told repeatedly lately, that the unchanging East is now changing. Of course it is changing, because it always has been changing. There is no such thing as "the unchangeable East." It may change slowly and almost imperceptibly, and I have no doubt it is changing now, but that it is changing with the dazzling rapidity of which we have been told by certain spokesmen in the Government I do hot believe. I think there has been a great change during the last three or four years in the attitude of the peoples of India, from the Princes right down to the peasants, and I think that change does not so much indicate a change of heart or a clamour for popular government or anything of that sort, but is a change which has been induced by a change of
attitude in the people or the Government of these Islands. I believe the Indian peoples during these post-war years have gradually felt more and more that they no longer have the same strong feeling in Parliament and England binding them together as they had formerly. I believe they are feeling that the bonds are loosened. The regime of Lord Irwin obviously had that effect.
It must have come as rather a shock to most of the peoples in India when Lord Irwin made his announcement about Dominion self-government. During the time of the Socialist Government no doubt they were encouraged in that feeling, and when the present National Government came into office and we were told by the Prime Minister that it had accepted the Socialist programme as regards India, I think the peoples of India must have felt that those bonds really were weakening, that Parliament and the British people themselves had not the same idea of government or the same feeling that they must keep a hold on India. and the Empire, and came to the conclusion that they must think out something for themselves. I do not believe in this rapid change which we are told is happening in India, but things are changing and we have to go forward. Personally, I am quite prepared to see a gradual proceeding towards final self-government in India. I think the Constitution which is adumbrated in the White Paper would probably, if brought into law, hold that final solution back rather than put it forward. I think there would be very swift failure, which would put progress back for many years. As long as we are content to take reasonable steps, slowly and with due consideration, and with full control, I think the majority of people in England will be behind us, and that we shall have a good chance of advancing finally to the goal which, I suppose, we all are seeking.

9.8 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I rise with great diffidence to take part in this Debate, because I think it has been marked with a great sense of solemnity, and I realise as well as anyone else in this House the responsibility resting on us for the thoughts expressed and the words spoken on an occasion like this. But before I say anything else, I feel I must express
my regret that in a Debate which has been carried on with such good feeling among all parties there should have been a carefully-prepared attack upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). As some hon. Members know, I have been as much at variance with the right hon. Member fur Epping as anyone in this House. He was a man who thwarted many of the ideals for which I was working over a considerable period of time, but I think it is only fair to him to say that the very moment these new India reforms appeared—I go back to the time when they originated with the Socialist Government—although at that time I was no friend of his in politics, he told me that he believed that this was going to be the one absorbing question, and that he was prepared to make any sacrifice in order to prevent what he considered was so great a national danger. It is only fair that we should recognise that the sincerity of the right hon. Member for Epping on this great issue is beyond any question of doubt.
I do not want to cross swords with my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who, I am sorry, is not here, because I remember him, as young Lord Turnour, winning a by-election more than a quarter of a century ago, when he and I were both candidates fighting under the banner of Joseph Chamberlain. I remember how heartened all of us were to think that a young man of 21 had won that remarkable victory for Imperial unity and holding the British Empire together. For many long years he remembered the motto of Mr. Chamberlain, and was a very ardent apostle of that policy, and I am a little saddened to think that the right hon. Gentleman, in the company of boon companions on the Front Bench, should have been led into these tortuous paths of democratic futility when we all regarded him as a very stout Constitutionalist. I, for one, always think of the Noble Lord as a gallant leader of the Camel Corps in defence of Britains' Eastern possessions, and I hope that no one will judge him too seriously for what I believe to be a temporary political aberration. I believe that before long we shall have him fighting again just as strongly as ever for the preservation of British rule in the East.
He made one or two remarks in his speech to which I must take friendly exception. He said the right hon. Member for Epping and I were painting terrible pictures of gloom about India under the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. I have never made any speech, and I have never heard one from the right hon. Member for Epping, in which we spoke with gloom about the present position in India, and certainly we have not attributed it to the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. We were gloomy enough when Lord Irwin was there, but I see no cause for gloom to-day, under the strong, sane Government of the Viceroy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Then, a great deal of play was made with regard to a, phrase used by the right hon. Member for Epping when he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne) in which he suggested that for the last five years those chosen for high positions in the Civil Service and elsewhere had been chosen with regard to the policy of the Government. It is all very well to raise the ire of the incorruptible House against the right hon. Gentleman on this point, but was that statement so very far from the truth of affairs as we know them? For instance, would the Prime Minister welcome persons in his Government unless he thonght they were going to carry out the policy of the Government? Would the Government appoint any high official—

Sir S. HOARE: It is not a question of being in the Government, but in the Civil Service.

Sir H. CROFT: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait. I was coming to that point. Would the Government appoint any high officers of State in the Services in India to carry out its policy if it were known that they were fundamentally opposed to it? Such an attitude seems to me almost inconceivable. I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as having very great wisdom, and I cannot believe, even if a Governor of a Province were going to be appointed, that the right hon. Gentleman would appoint him if he knew that he would be directly opposed to the policy which is now—

Sir S. HOARE: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will forgive me for
interrupting him, but I tell him in a, single sentence that considerations of that kind would not enter my mind at all.

Sir H. CROFT: I am very glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Now we know that future Governors of the Provinces will nevertheless be appointed to these great positions, even if they believe, as I do, that this scheme should never have been entered upon. I cannot see why. If you are committed to this scheme, the Services, high or low, should be ready to carry out your policy. I cannot commend the right hon. Gentleman's wisdom in that respect. Some hon. Members think that this is the most favourable time to carry out this policy. I suppose that that is because we have a National Government in which parties are more or less united in carrying it out, and there is very great good will, up to a point, on the part of right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition Bench. It is rather a dangerous doctrine that you are to abandon your main principles just because you think the moment is favourable in the House of Commons. Why not let us go right ahead now with the nationalisation of the railways, the banks and the mines, as is advocated by hon. Members of the Socialist party 4 I have far too friendly feelings for the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham to use any harsh words of him, but I was a little bit sad when he seemed to think that (my efforts to defend the Conservative faith in the country were so liable to criticism. I can only say that I should be very much relieved if some of those who sat around him and cheered him would not press me quite so often to assist them in their constituencies.
I desire to congratulate His Majesty's Government, because they have got back to sound constitutional ground. The setting up of a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament is a procedure which every one of us must support. I rejoice to think that His Majesty's Government are setting up a Committee, and that we should have had it clearly intimated that no hon. Member is bound by any of the proposals which appear in the White Paper. I congratulate His Majesty's Government very much on having secured the return of one who was so great an advocate at Geneva, and who came down to this House yesterday and, with remarkable skill, convinced many
hon. Members of the infallibility of the report of the Statutory Commission, with regard to law and order, and its fallibility of government at the centre, more especially when I recall that the Simon Commission says that the unity of the Central Executive must be preserved at all costs. This great advocate told us how utterly ungenerous and unjust were the attacks on some of the recently-promoted Indian legislators, because of their complaints of the police force as agents of an alien bureaucracy. In the same breath he told us that, for that reason, we must get rid of that imputation by handing over the police to their detractors. I can only say that this kind of reasoning is somewhat illogical, and I regret that we should be influenced by any such considerations.
All through these difficult decisions we ought to be influenced by one supreme reason above all others, and that is the welfare of the Indian people. For that reason, it is imperative that the police and the forces of law and order in that country should be kept in our hands. When the Foreign Secretary concluded his speech, which in many parts was very helpful, by saying that Parliament must decide these questions openly and freely, I rejoiced. Whatever those words may mean, I hope that they may be taken literally. I remember on a previous occasion, right at the commencement of this Parliament—I hope the House will not think that one is saying anything that is too critical—when we were ill-informed and suddenly had these great proposals thrust upon us, we were somewhat strictly compelled to vote upon this subject. So it was with a Private Member's Motion a few weeks ago, when the attempt was made for the first time to get a vote in this House in support of the Simon Commission, with certain temporary reservations as to law and order. In the same way, the whole authority and the whole paraphernalia of Government authority were marshalled against me.
On that occasion I happened to be one of the Tellers in the Lobby, and I must confess that I never saw such an ill-assorted cavalcade coming through one Lobby in the 23 years that I have been in this House. [interruption.] Never mind. It was a Lobby for doing nothing. It was a full Lobby. If the House would like a fuller description, let me say that
there was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) leading his troops, there was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) leading his generous allies, and there was the full strength of the Clydesiders. All of them, were there, and interspersed were a sprinkling of temporary sinners in the Conservative party. I only mention that to remind the Secretary of State that only a week before the Motion was moved in this House, Lord Irwin in another place said that Parliament was free and unfettered. All I can say is that if the freedom of the Whips was shown on that occasion, I hope that we shall never know what stern discipline is in the future. No wonder that when one read one's "Daily Herald" next day, one saw they were gloating over the sidetracking of my Motion. They had every right to gloat, because their policy held the field.
We have got back again to thoroughly constitutional procedure, that is to say, the Round Table Conference is demobilised, at any rate for the time being. In case there is any kind of feeling in the country that people can be lulled into a false sense of security because of the setting up of a Select Committee, I feel that now is the opportunity to warn those people that, from the nature of the case, it is almost inevitable that the Committee cannot be impartial with regard to the establishment of self-government at the Centre, for the simple reason that that is the broad policy of His Majesty's Government. To the majority you have to add the authors of the scheme, the Socialist representatives and some of the representatives perhaps of the Liberal party who, on this subject, are the lovers of His Majesty's Government, although some of us had hoped that the divorce had been made absolute some little time ago. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Chief Whip will say that there will be upon this Committee a strong minority of those who believe in British Rule in India; but how strong? Will they be 45 per cent.? We believe that we represent the majority of opinion in the country, and we feel very confident that we represent the opinion of the Conservative party. In the circumstances, 45 per cent. is not an undue demand. I make this claim
with more confidence because the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench do not know what the opinion of the country is.
The Prime Minister, and the Lord President of the Council, did not mention the surrender of British Government at the centre in any of their election manifestos. I hardly think it was mentioned in any of their speeches; certainly the abandonment of government at the centre never appeared during the minute examination I made of these orations. While other countries have their dictators, we in this country are still under constitutional government. We have no right to part with British territory without the emphatic and overwhelming opinion of the people of this country. Here I think I can make a very special appeal to the Lord President of the Council. I can say, I think, that no man in this House, in my memory, has a cleaner record on the subject of mandates than the right hon. Gentleman. When he was Prime Minister he point-blank refused and, if he will forgive my saying so, he did so courageously when he refused to safeguard iron and steel which, at that time, was facing ruin. The sole reason he gave us was that he had no mandate for that policy, and that he could not do it. We did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman's contention, but there was not one of us who did not honour his meticulous determination to see that his mandate was not exceeded.
With the greatest respect, I ask him how he can square these views of 1927 with his present intention to go ahead with this policy of ending government at the centre in India, without the sanction of the people, or asking their opinion upon this vital revolution—vital not only to Lancashire but to British financial and trade interests in India, and vital to every man, woman and child in the Empire who is concerned with the fabric of British rule and is a partner in British destiny? I venture to submit that never before in the history of this country has there been an attempt by a Government to commit this House to so great a venture by the back door, without ascertaining the will of the people. We were told the moment the White Paper was published; "Ah! This changes the situation; look at the safeguards." I can find no new safe-
guard in the White Paper. I think the right hon. Gentleman has been very consistent with his safeguards. I can find no new safeguards except those expressed in speeches, or in communiques which came from that extraordinary emporium of constitutional wares, the Round Table Conference.
That conference, I must remind the House, contained no single administrator, or soldier, of Indian experience, and no small landlord from India. It included no representative of ex-service men in India. I think I am not wrong in saying it included only one or two classes—the Princes, the higher aristocracy and a certain number of idealists. Here I want to take the strongest exception to the riot which occurred when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping referred to the possibility that, in the last five years, people had not been promoted in India unless known to support the Government policy. I wonder what steps the Secretary of State for India, and those working with him in India, have taken to get into touch with the civil servants in India. I am assured that, with the exception of a few at the head, the whole range of civil servants feel that they have not been consulted. It may have been impossible but it is wrong for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen to say that they are in favour. They have never been consulted.
The safeguards sound so well, but just once more I want to examine them before the Leader of the Socialist party gives his blessing to this policy. The Governor of a Province, this solitary British guardian of peace, finance, revenue, education, forestry, irrigation and all those services—I think the Secretary of State said there were 70 of them—has a great responsibility. But suppose a Hindu Legislature tries to force through a Measure which is considered oppressive and repugnant to the Mohammedan population. The Governor will certainly protest. If his protest is of no avail, what is he to do? I asked the Secretary of State, on Monday, what would be the position in such a contingency, and if the minority would then form a Government. With that courtesy, for which he is always remarkable, he said my question was pertinent, but lie did not answer
my point, although he stated next day that the Governor could suspend the Constitution. The answer is that the Governor would send for the leader of the minority, who must, inevitably, be a Mohammedan, and ask him to form a Cabinet. That Cabinet could not last a day.
After all, religions do not change in the East in this manner. Dissolution follows, with the inevitable result that a Hindu Government is returned. The Governor, this lonely soul without a British ally, can do nothing but appeal to the Governor-General to suspend the Constitution. In this case the Governor, we are told in the White Paper, will be given plenary authority to assume all the power he deems necessary. You might as well tell the bather in the ocean, whose clothes have been stolen while he was in the sea, that when he came ashore he must assume all the garments he deemed necessary for the occasion. The Governor has no power; it cannot be done. The captains have departed, and no expert is standing by his side. He has not an Indian policeman, of whom there was 799 to one white. The policeman can claim his pension, and his pay, from the Indian Minister responsible for law and order, with whom the Governor at that time is at variance.
How can a Governor assume powers when he has parted with all the machinery of power? This is merely an interregnum because the Cabinet has fallen, and the row is going on. It is possible that there may be communal trouble, and you may have terrible massacres such as have been seen in India. The Viceroy may send his soldiers, but that is not the kind of way we desire the final clearing up of the mess. If they wanted to operate, how could they do so with the law courts and police in the hands of a Minister in conflict with the Governor? What consolation have you in these circumstances Here again I will tell you by reference to the White Paper. It says:
The Governor should hear in mind the close connection between his special responsibility for peace and tranquillity and the internal administration and discipline of the police.
What is the good of his bearing it in mind? You might just as well tell the wax-works at Madame Tussaud's to bear in mind their responsibilities in connec-
tion with some particular question. I know there are colleagues of mine who say, "Yes, we realise these grave dangers in the Provinces, but we believe that if only you establish a Central Government as well, you will minimise these dangers." In other words, if there is chaos in the Provinces, you can perhaps help the situation by having chaos at the centre. I cannot follow that argument. If the machinery of law in this country breaks down, say in Yorkshire, then, if you have scrapped your Scotland Yard organisation and your Criminal Intelligence Department organisation, if your law courts are no longer in your hands in London, and you have not even your Metropolitan police to move up to Yorkshire, as you would have in other times, I am at a loss to see how it would help the situation if you had the same impossible conditions in London that existed in Yorkshire. I know that the authors of this policy are not concerned with these realities. After all, the men who backed the general strike in this country, and tried to bring the life of their own country to a complete cessation, are hardly likely to be deterred by the fear of any complete breakdown of government in India. They are possessed of all the valour of ignorance.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They did that in self-defence; they will never do it again.

Sir H. CROFT: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. As I say, he has all the valour of ignorance. I want to ask what the Liberal party feels about this great problem, about this attitude in regard to dealing with this discordant humanity, this great mass of people whom some people so ignorantly call a nation, but whom, as His Highness the Aga Khan told us, it would take generations to become a nation. May I ask what, then, is going to be done if we find ourselves confronted with these great difficulties. Personally, I do not believe that the safeguards can ever be operated without the will of the governed, and that is where the right hon. Gentleman, I think, is altogether too optimistic. He has not read the speeches of those who are concerned with Indian politics, and, in coming to the House now, he has based his White Paper upon a mighty assumption. The House will remember the words:
The present proposals in general necessarily proceed on the basic assumption that every endeavour will be made by those responsible for working the Constitution to approach the administrative problems which will present themselves in the spirit of partners in a common Empire.
How can the spirit of partnership be assumed when the only political forces which exist have made it crystal clear that they are hostile to your intentions? How can we mouth these words "in the spirit of partners," when even the Liberal and moderate gentlemen upon whom the right hon. Gentleman leans have made it absolutely clear that they require the fixing of a date for the handing over of the Indian Army, the complete Indianisation of that Army, the complete control of exchange, currency and economic policy, and the release of Gandhi and others? These are the words of bite leaders, the very men whom the right hon. Gentleman has again and again quoted as being of Liberal opinion. There was one passage—I do not propose to read it in full—in the speech of the Secretary of State, which really staggered me. It was a very moving and powerful appeal. He said:
We cannot isolate these Indian questions from the whole field of Asiatic questions. India is not isolated from the rest of Asia. Hon. Members would be very unwise if they approached this question without reminding themselves of what has been happening from one end of Asia to the other in the years since the War—if, for instance, they failed to remember what is called the new tide in China, if they failed to remember, again, the efforts which Turkey is making to establish itself as a modern progressive Power, if they failed, again, to remember the events of only the last few weeks in which Japan has been challenging a big body of European public opinion. What wonder, when all this ferment is going on in Asia from one end of that continent to the other, that India should be raising its voice for recognition, and that India should be making a demand for a greater share in its own Government?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th March, 1933; col. 699, Vol. 276.]
The right hon. Gentleman quoted Turkey. I would ask, where is the success of democratic institutions in Turkey? Mustapha Kemal put an end to them at the end of two years. Again, is Persia very successful with her democratic institutions? In Siam they were tried 20 years ago, but have been abandoned ever since. In Egypt, we forced democratic institutions upon the people, and it will be remembered that immediately we were
invited to clear out. We rather assented to that proposition for a brief moment, but the Lord hardened the hearts of the Egyptians, and refused to let us go unless we would get out of the Sudan as well. In Syria, is there democratic Government? Are they pining for democratic instituions there? What is the situation in Iraq, whence we scuttled only a few weeks ago, discovering that the Iraqi were fit to help to govern the world through a great assembly like the League of Nations. Where is the Constitution there? People say, "Never mind; there is Japan, that great democratic country; and there is China." The Secretary of State quoted these and other countries as a reason why democratic Government should be given to India.
I want to remind the House that we are under no sort of pledge with regard to the kind of policy indicated in the White Paper. Fortunately, the Secretary of State made that abundantly clear to the House beyond any shadow of doubt. But we have to remember that the law of the land as it stands is the Government of India Act, in which it is laid down quite clearly that we should proceed step by step, that we can restrict, extend and modify the reforms in India as Parliament may decide. That being so, why did we rush to the precipice in this matter? I will quote a few words from the greatest songster of our race—the man who, perhaps, has more vividly brought the East home to us than any other living man. He wrote these words:
At the end of the fight is a tombstone white,
With the name of the late deceased;
And the epitaph drear, A fool lies here,
Who tried to hustle the East.'
I commend those words of his distinguished relative to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, and I would express the hope that they will not be as prophetic in his case, and do not indicate that these proposals may mean that an epitaph may have to be found for the National Government.
Some of us feel very deeply on this question of India. There is no country in the world which have been invaded more frequently. One of its conquerors invaded India 17 times. It has been invaded by the Greeks, the Persians, the Mongols, the Tartars, the Arabs, the Afghans, the Turks, the Portuguese and the French,
not to mention the Scythians and a few others. India has been more conquered than any other country in the world, not excepting Egypt. Alll these countries acted as tyrants towards India, and it was only after we had been there for some time, and the whole force of our Government had been exercised, that it became a country where peace ruled. If you go out of India—and the period of transition can have no other meaning—it is almost inevitable that Soviet Russia will walk across the frontier, and what moral right will you have to stop her?
Some of us had forbears who gave their lives in the service of India and gave all their experience and wisdom to the service of India. Some of us had forbears who actually sacrificed their lives for India. I can remember, when I was a very little child, sitting at the feet of my grandmother and being told the story how the sole survivor of that appalling disaster in the Khyber, in the picture made so famous in history by Lady Butler as the only man who reached Allahabad, came to our native town in order to console her in her great loss and to tell her how one of these men had died by Afghan spears. The name of the Khyber Pass to some of us is a tragic and glorious one. Are we quite sure that we are not selling that very pass to-day? Is it not possible that, if you carry out this intention of yours, the million hosts of that country which has declared war upon God will go through that very Khyber made immortal by the death of those heroic British dead? If that is so, it means that the cankerous blight of the uncivilised savagery will spread throughout the whole of that country of India which is in your trust. The weak man persists in going on when he is warned of disaster. The strong man has the courage to turn back. If you would have peace in your time and not risk terrible disaster in this great Asiatic sub-continent, I implore you not to go forward with this policy, which die country has given no sanction for, and which you have no right to put upon the Statute Book until England has given a decisive voice thereon.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: The hon. Baronet always attracts attention because of the downrightness of his speeches and his absolute sincerity. I can say that to
him because I take an altogether opposite line from that which he takes. The statesmen of this country, not Socialist statesmen only but statesmen of all parties, over a long period of years have declared again and again and again that the end of British rule in India must and ought to be the rule of India by the Indians. I cannot make out quite why he should think that they are all wrong, and that he and those who think with him must be right. If this policy had been brought in by those who, he thinks, are so ignorant on this subject, I could understand the enthusiasm with which he opposes the proposal, but I cannot understand his opposition when I remember—I am much older than he is—that the first time I heard Henry Fawcett on the subject, the tenor of his speech was that ultimately, because of the British connection and because of the association with Britain, the people of India would set up a self-governing State, and it would be that sort of State which we in this country think the best Government. What I have said of Henry Fawcett was also true of the late Queen Victoria in 1858. The very inception of modern relationship with India has always been based on the assumption that sooner or later India would be governing herself and, therefore, I am at a loss to understand why the policy so long set forth should meet with the determined opposition that it is meeting with to-day.
The Labour Government entered into the business of trying to bring together the various elements in India as a sequence to the appointment of the Statutory Commission. Our Government did not appoint that Commission. It was in existence when we came into existence, and it is well known that the condition of India at that time was very bad indeed. I want to pay my tribute to two men who, I think, dealt with that very terrible situation not only in a statesmanlike but in a very sympathetic manner indeed. I mean Lord Irwin and Mr. Wedgwood Benn. I should think that Conservative and other Members who are not of our party would also agree that these two men faced a situation which had already become dangerous. It is true, and it has often been thrown up against me, that they were obliged to pass ordinances to suppress free speech and to imprison
thousands of people, but all the time they both kept steadily in mind the fact that what they had to do was to convince the Congress leaders that they were in earnest in asking that they should help the Simon Commission to the end. The underlying note of their policy was that we should have continuous co-operation with the people of India, that is, the vocal part of the people of India, and that we should continue our discussions until we arrived at a conclusion satisfactory to them and to ourselves. I regret more than I can say that when the National Government took this business in hand, the Round Table Conference was wound up and Mr. Gandhi went home, and that the conference was never summoned again. Mr. Gandhi has been in prison now for about 16 months. We have had a very truncated Round Table Conference, not at all representative, and in the end we have this White Paper produced by the Government.
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-day have all tried to impress us, as has the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft), that this is one of the most vital and serious questions that this House is likely to have to discuss for a long time. We are as conscious of that as anyone else in the House of Commons. We understand quite well that, for weal or woe, this White Paper or some propositions will have to be passed in order at least to attempt to bring about a settlement and to restore confidence between the people in India and the rulers in this country. We also join in paying our tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and to his assistant the Under-Secretary of State for their statements on Monday and to-day. I would particularly congratulate the Under-Secretary because he is relatively young and very few men with his experience would have made a better and clearer statement than that which he made to-day. I want also to say that in all these congratulations I can only join to that extent. I cannot join in the congratulations of the right hon. Gentleman that peace reigns in India. I rather deny and question that altogether. When you suppress a people, wipe out free speech and the right of public meeting and deny all sorts of contact between very large
sections of the people and you have no disturbance, I do not call it peace, but death.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman of a saying I used to hear when I was a boy of a Tsarist general who sent a message to the Tsar that order reigned in Warsaw because he was holding the people down by brute force. To-day you are keeping in prison the men who, if they were called into conference on this subject, might even now help us to find a solution. Other people may hold what views they please—and although I have not been to India, I know a very considerable number of Indians of all sorts and conditions—but I am confident that whatever you may pass in this country, and whatever may be passed in India, unless you have the consent of the great mass of organised opinion in India and unless you have the co-operation of Congress you will not be able to administer whatever laws you may be pleased to pass. It is not merely Mr. Gandhi that you have to consider. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows young Nehru probably much better than I do. The Under-Secretary of State this afternoon said that he hoped that the young men—he was speaking of the young men of Britain—serving in India, and serving perhaps in this House, would give themselves to the service of the people of India when these proposals became law. Has he forgotten that there is a huge mass of young Indians in India, and that it is they who want to have the right to build a new life in their own country? It is they who are making the struggle for self-government. It has been my privilege on several occasions to go to the meetings of young Indians in the universities and what has always struck me is that, just as the hon. Baronet the Member for Bournemouth speaks to-day for our country, so they speak for their country. The one thing which boils up in their minds is that they may go back to India and serve her as the hon. Baronet serves our country in this House. And why not?
The Noble Lord rebuked some of those who were talking of lawyers and politically-minded people as if it were a crime in India to be in politics, and something very virtuous to be in politics in this country. When I look around this House and also look at myself in the looking glass I honestly cannot take such
self-conscious pride in myself, and think that I am superior to the people in India who only want to do exactly what I think that I want to do in this country. I would beg of the right hon. Gentleman to remember that young Nehru and his friends are the people you have to enlist in this campaign. It is they whom you have to bring in to administer and to make the laws of their own country. Unless you do that, it is certain that, no matter what laws you pass or who passes them, your proposals will be bound to fail. I am certain that they will fail unless you have the co-operation of young India, and that at present you have not got. We are not dealing with a country which is naturally a poor country. India is naturally a very wealthy country. It has enormous potential wealth.
I would like the right hon. Gentleman to bring to the House—and I am saying this because of those who continually boast of the conditions of India—a report from all the villages in India as to the housing conditions, and the general living conditions of the people. I should like to see a return up to date as to how far we have proceeded in getting rid of illiteracy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) spoke to-day about the vast increase in the population of India, but no one has denied the statements which were made by the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone). Her figures and statements were appalling. When you hear of the great blessing which we have brought to India, you must set against it the terrible indictment which the hon. Lady made and which no one has attempted to controvert.
I want to raise another question, and I hope that the House will forgive me because it may touch, I will not say the vanity, but the self-esteem of many hon. Members. The Lord President of the Council, speaking, I think, during the Debate to which the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth called attention, said that whenever God had a job to be done He looked round for an Englishman to do it. I admire most of his speeches as speeches, but I admired that speech best of all because it was such a, courageous one, and he laid down some very fine principles indeed. As he made that remark I said to my-
self: "That is the secret not of our greatness but why many people do not like us very much." There is a self-conscious unctuousness about it. It reminded me of Cecil Rhodes, who rebuked people for their unctuous rectitude. Here are we, saying that we are the chosen people to rule India, to rule Egypt, to rule the world. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I knew that I should get that cheer. Of course, it is all nonsense. Let us clear our minds of that. We have not yet managed to manage our own affairs. We 'have to face up to the fact that although we may believe that sort of thing, although the right hon. Gentleman and the Government may believe it, and hon. Members may believe it, other people do not believe it, and as the world progresses fewer people will accept such a doctrine. Certainly, the people in India will not accept that doctrine.
The people of India do not believe that you have given them unmixed blessings. They know perfectly well that individual Englishmen and individual Englishwomen have given tremendous service in India in one way or another, but they know one thing, which the Lord President of the Council has said, and that is that you cannot govern any country without the consent of the governed. The people in India who are vocal say: "We want to govern ourselves. We do not think that you know enough to be able to govern us." There is nobody in the world who really can manage another sentient human being. No one can really improve a man or a woman; that man and woman must improve themselves. Goodness cannot be pumped into people; it has to be drawn out of people. This attempt on the part of any race to say that they alone have a divine right and a sort of divine knowledge to rule people, is quite beside the point.
I have heard of many wonderful things which have been done in India. There have been many wonderful things done in India in the material sense. No one denies that, but when I listen to the serious conditions of the workers in Bombay, Calcutta and elsewhere; and I am told that those wretched mills, those mines and factories are owned or run by Indians—they are run by Indians and other people—I ask myself who was it that took capitalism to India? Who
started India on the road that has produced the evils of which we hear? It was not something that India grew out of her own ideas. The Indians learned it from the West. That is one of the curses that we have given to the people of the East. [Interruption.] Certainly. I say that it is one of the curses that we have given to the East. I think that modern capitalism is the curse of the East. I hear statements about the competition of the East, the competition of Japan, China, or India, and I remember the discussions that we have had as to the right of India to exclude or to let in certain goods.
Hon. Members who are worried about Japanese competition would do well to remember that a few years ago the only industry that was busy in Lancashire was the engineering industry which was producing a special kind of textile machinery for producing the lowest standard of cloth for the Japanese and Chinese people. It was sent out by British capitalists, who employed British capital, to compete with Lancashire and Yorkshire in the markets of the East. It is no use our thinking that we get over these difficulties merely by blaming the Indian people or the Japanese people. We have to blame that system of moneymaking which says: "We will make money anywhere and under almost any conditions." Therefore, the people in this country who are discussing this question from the point of view of British trade or from the point of view of benefit to British trade only, are making a very great mistake.
I want to leave enough time for the Lord President of the Council, but I wish to say a few things as clearly as I can as to our attitude in regard to the Joint Select Committee proposed to be set up. In the event of our Motion being defeated, as it very well may be, we most certainly would prefer that no Committee be set up. We do not think that it is any use trying to carry this business through without the Congress being represented. We think that it will waste the time of Parliament, waste the time of the Committee and waste our time in trying to do the impossible. I would not choose the course of the hon. Baronet, as it were, and throw up the sponge, but I would try another way, the way that was adopted, I believe, with Australia. I
would say to the Indians, "You Princes and commoners, frame your Constitution. Tell us how you wish this great sub-Continent to be managed." I notice that the Noble Lord feels the pride of the Englishman and thinks that it is a ridiculous thing to ask the Indians to frame a Constitution. When he next speaks on the subject I would ask him to tell us why not. Surely we would not want Indians to frame a Constitution for us.
They know better than anyone else how to manage one another. It is said that they will destroy one another. That may be said of us, and although we say a lot of nice, nasty things about each other very often, we would not dream of allowing a foreign Power to frame a Constitution for us. Why should we not allow Indians themselves to frame their own Constitution? It has been said to me, in regard to the Round Table Conference, that these wretched Indians do not know what they want. We have stated over and over again the policy of the Labour party, and it is a policy which the present Prime Minister helped us to formulate. He will no doubt remember it quite well. I will read it again, because it is important in view of what was said earlier in the Debate:
Since the commencement of British control in India successive British Governments have given pledges to the peoples of that country. The Labour party desire to gee these pledges honoured, and we stand by the declaration made at our Blackpool conference in 1927.
This is the Declaration; and this is what divides us from hon. Members opposite and from the White Paper:
We reaffirm the right of the Indian people"—
It is a right, not a privilege—
to full self-government and self-determination and, therefore, the policy of the British Government should be one of continuous co-operation with the Indian peoples with the object of establishing India at the earliest possible moment and by her consent"—
I want hon. Members to notice the phrase "by her consent"—
as an equal partner with the other members of the British Commonwealth of nations.
What do we mean by the British Commonwealth of Nations The Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference of 1926 said:
The members of the British Commonwealth are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or internal affairs though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
The late Mr. Bonar Law defined Dominion Home Rule as follows:
If the self-governing Dominion of Australia or Canada chooses to-morrow to say," We will no longer make a part of the British Empire,' we would not try to force them. Dominion Home Rule means the right to decide for themselves.
We take our stand upon that, and say that the Indian peoples themselves must decide whether they will come into this Federation. If they choose to go out they have a right to go out, just as Canada and South Africa have the right. The Lord President of the Council ought to make it crystal clear whether their proposals in the White Paper mean that ultimately, I do not say to-day but as soon as is ever possible, the people of India, under the new Constitution which you are going to set up, will have the same status, the same rights, the same duties, if you will, as any other member of the British Commonwealth. Finally, I believe with many others who have spoken, that the world is at the parting of the ways, not only in regard to the question of Government by democracies or by dictatorships, but also on the question of imperialism. I do not believe it will be possible in future to have the sort of Imperialism that Rome held, that Greece and other great civilisations practised in the past. When I spoke here on the Japanese question I said—[Interruption.] I can understand the courtesy of the Noble Lord and his friends at this time of the evening. I am trying to make a speech and they are trying to interrupt me by talking all the time.

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: If I interrupted the right hon. Gentleman in any way I apologise. I am very sorry. I only happened to say something to an hon. Friend beside me.

Mr. LANSBURY: Then I am very sorry, too. It is extremely difficult to make a speech with a continual run of conversation. An hon. Friend who spoke earlier to-day had to submit to a running fire of talk the whole time. Sooner or later there will be the sort of protest that none of us will care to make. We
felt to-night that we ought to go on talking while everyone else was speaking because of the treatment of my hon. Friend earlier to-day. I was saying that I believed Imperialism had had its day. Everywhere those who have pinned their faith to Imperialism have utterly failed. I do not believe that this country has gained anything by Imperialism, or that the masses have been benefited by it one bit. I believe that this civilisation will have to change its form, its methods, its relationship with the rest of the world. Most of all I believe that we of the white races will have to change our attitude of mind towards those who are called the subject races. If you believe that you are stronger and cleverer than they are, if you believe that God has given you more brain than they have, the only thing you should do with those brains and talents is to be of greater service to the community, and not masters and dominators of it.

10.23 p.m.

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): In my first words I would like, on behalf of the whole House, to offer our profound sympathy with, and admiration of, the right hon. Gentleman for the courage he has shown in coming to address us to-night. Now we are reaching the close of a momentous Debate, a Debate which in my view—I have sat through most of it—has been conducted admirably from every point of view. We have heard hon. Members in all parts of the House give their views with clarity and sincerity. Indeed, the whole Debate is in strongest contrast with a Debate that many of us remember, on an even more momentous Bill, the Government of India Bill of 1919. I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) when he spoke of the interest our ancestors took in this question in this House. It is not an interest that we have taken—neither he nor I nor many of us who are here. I have refreshed my memory as to what took place in 1919 on the Government of India Bill. The Second Reading passed in one day. Among the few speakers was my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works, who is in the House to-night, and he said, speaking on 5th June, 1919:
As one who has sat through the Debate continuously I do feel that it is
very sad that the attendance has been so sparse this afternoon on what is in all probability the most important and far-reaching Bill that has been introduced into this House for several years. It is no use blaming Members of the House for not attending Debates of this important character on Imperial subjects, when the Treasury Bench is empty during the whole Debate, with the exception of the Minister in charge of the Bill, and another Minister who has a faithful and good record in his interest in Indian affairs. Otherwise, the whole of the Ministers have been away."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1919; cols. 2383–84, Vol. 116.]
I was a junior Minister then, and I assume I was one of them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, who was a very important Minister could not have been there either. In the time left to me, I think perhaps I can best devote myself to giving the House secondarily and my own party primarily, the reasons that induced me, in 1929, to take the line which I have taken and why I adhere to that line now. I am the more disposed to do that because of the speech of my noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer), because I am quite aware that what he said in his speech, although I do not think it has been expressed in any other speech, is latent in many minds. I wish to make some observations before I have finished on what he called my sentimentalism. I think I can prove very clearly to this House that I have been actuated by realism, and that sentimentalism lies with those who oppose me. For the information of Liberal Members on this point, I would like to explain to them that when my noble Friend called me a sentimental Liberal he really meant "a sentimental ass."
I may begin by saying that, great as is my friendship with, and my admiration for, Lord Irwin, it was not that friendship nor that admiration which made me take that view. I have never yet adopted a political view from a personal friendship nor, on the other hand, have I ever allowed personal friendship to prevent me from separating from my political friends if I thought it right. I think I am absolved on that charge. The question that I asked myself was this: For one who adheres to Tory principles, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) does, I asked myself, what is the right course to preserve one of the first principles of
the Primrose League, the maintenance of the Empire? I decided, after mature reflection, that if we went forward we might save India, to the Empire, but, if we did not, that we should lose her. It was that belief that actuated me, and I propose to give the House the reasons why I came to those conclusions. I should say here, and I hope it is not impertinence to my friends to say it, that I take no exception to the line that many of my friends have taken. I do not expect them for a moment to feel the strength of the reasons that moved me. I know the depth of their feelings, I know the sincerity of their feelings; I think they are wrong, but I respect them. So far as I am concerned, there will be no bad blood between us for anything that may have been said or that may be said later On.
Let me preface what I am going to say by alluding to the close of the long but interesting speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Sir R. Craddock). He quoted from a pamphlet that I do not suppose anyone reads now, but with which I was familiar when I was young, and that was Carlyle's "Shooting Niagara." It made a great sensation in its time. Well, we have shot Niagara now, many years ago, and we are in the rapids, and likely to be in them for a long time. In spite of what one of my hon. Friends said, I do not believe that the salvation of man lies in the ballot box. I do not think I have ever paid lip service to democracy, but what I always have said is this: A public man in any generation has to work in the environment in which he is found. The environment in which we are living is that of democracy, but it does not follow that it is a perfect system. I do not wish to criticise it to-night. It may be good or it may not, but it is what we have to work with, and it is the bad workman who complains of his tools. If he has to work in a democratic system, the wise man not only makes the best of it himself, without complaining, but tries to make everybody else feel the same, and he tries to make the best of the tools that he has. Because we none of us know, whether we sit here or on the other side of the House, whether any change, particularly any revolutionary change, is not going to land us out of the frying pan into the fire. So much for that.
Well, we shot Niagara before the War. At least, Carlyle would have said we had shot it, had he lived. But, of course, there are many hon. Members in this House who do not remember the days before the War—not as grown men. It seems remarkable to many of us here. Before the War we lived in the early 20th century, which was a continuation of the late 19th century. To-day, what many of my hon. Friends have never realised, and will not to the day of their death, we are living in the 21st century. I have said times without number in the last 14 years, both on the platform and in this House, that during the War we passed through one, two, and it may be three generations of political evolution. That is why many of us are still giddy: we have never been able to reconcile ourselves to the age in which we live. This post-War world is full of pre-War minds.
Many people in this country will never realise the direction in which the world is going, and particularly our own country. We are still in the middle of the evolution, which is not over yet, and will last for many years, and may last for the best part of a generation. Things are changing round us and under our feet more quickly than some people realise, and the party that does not realise it does not stand much chance of being returned to power in this country. I always think that that is one of the greatest mistakes of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, for whom I have the greatest admiration for his multifarious gifts. We worked together closely and intimately for four or five years, and I do not think that we had any dispute during that time. We worked well together. But this one thing always remains in him. He was brought up, as I was, a Tory. For reasons that seemed good to him, he was not one of us during all the years when we were in the wilderness. When we were in the wilderness, and especially at the end of the War, those of us who believed in our party had to think hard to see how we could align our party to the forces that came into existence after the War.
Who thought when the War began that in 10 years we would have universal suffrage in this country? Who would have thought in 1903, when my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bourne-
mouth and I were supporting Joseph Chamberlain that in 1926 we should have an Imperial Conference when the only threads remaining were threads of gossamer? These changes were brought about by Mr. Balfour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and many others whose Toryism was unimpeachable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping was not with us in those years, and has not quite understood what has passed through our minds, or the point from which we moved. When once more, to our delectation, he was able to help us again after our great victory, there was a natural tendency on his part to revert to the Toryism in which he had been brought up. It is the Toryism of that time that is reflected to-day in his views on India, because those were the views of the Toryism of the times when he and I were young. We have had long talks together, and I have enjoyed his conversation. I remember that George "Wyndham, who was much loved and admired in this House, was an admirable talker, but he was a bad listener, and he often thought he was listening when, as a matter of fact, he was only talking. My friends are good enough to tell me that I am a good listener, and sometimes a man who is not a good listener is apt not to have revealed to him some of the wisdom that is revealed to babes and sucklings.
I was speaking about the conditions of this country and about democracy, and as I have often said here and on the platform, that contraction of the world which began some years ago has increased with lightning rapidity since the War. It is a contraction which applies not only to Europe but to the whole world. The motor car, the films, the aeroplane and the gramophone brought a revolution in the world, and to-day there is no idea that is started among men that does not flash from pole to pole with the speed of light. That is the great difference between this age and the age before the War. Not only has it altered our country, but it has altered our relations with every country in the world. It has altered the unchanging East. The unchanging East is not unchanging. The defeat of Russia by Japan caused a new spirit to burn in the whole of Asia; the fall of the ancient Chinese monarchy shows that. There is
a yeast at work in the whole of the East, and India cannot be isolated. That yeast is working there. It is not the India of our childhood, it is not the India of our young manhood; it is a new India, and that is the thing with which we have to reckon. My right hon. Friend was delighted the other day when somebody quoted, not quite correctly, the lines about:
The legions thunder past.
I saw the glint of pleasure come into his eye. It is no longer true, however, that thought is static in India. Her thought to-day is dynamic, and that is so not only in India but throughout the whole of the East, and it has been one of the greatest difficulties with which we have had to contend, and is our greatest difficulty to-day in foreign politics as between this country and the whole of China and the whole of Japan, and it will be so for many years to come. Whence came the democratic ideas into India that form part of this yeast? They all came from this country. Rightly or wrongly we gave a literary English education to an Eastern people, and we are reaping now what we sowed 100 years ago. Everyone in India who is educated has had an education of that kind. The whole of their political education, broadly speaking, has been in English political Liberalism, the democratic idea. We have raised that plant. We have taught India the idea of unity, which did not exist when we went there. We have taught the Indian people the two things that to-day are the strongest motive power in the country, and now they are asking us for that responsibility which we have said time and time again is the goal to which they are to look forward.
I do not mind confessing that one of the strongest arguments in favour of responsibility proceeds whence many strong arguments come, and that is from my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) did not quote this one, though he gave a very pertinent quotation. I have one which I think is much more pertinent. It is from a speech made by the right hon. Member for Epping during a Debate just before I became a Member of this House when our party, on political grounds, were opposing the grant of the Constitution to the Transvaal. The right hon.
Member for Epping made the most powerful defence of those proposals. I do not propose to give the House the reasons, admirable as they are, but his conclusion is one to which there is no answer. He said:
On these grounds His Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that it would be right to omit the stage of representative Government altogether and to come directly to the stage of responsible government. It is the same in politics as it is in war. When one hard-pressed line has been left it is necessary to go to the next. It is quite idle to halt half-way in the valley between. That is to cause imminent and certain destruction. The moment you abandon the safe position of a Crown Colony, or of Government with a nominated majority, there is no stopping-place whatever on which you may rest the sole of your foot until you come to a responsible legislative assembly with an executive obeying that assembly.
An Irish Member asked the rather pertinent question: "Why not in Ireland?" To which my right hon. Friend, ever an adept in answer, replied: "I do not attempt to localise the logic of those arguments." Frankly, no more do I. I said that we might lose India from the Empire if we did not take a long step forward. I will not enumerate here the reasons—hon. Members can imagine many of them—such as exist in India. I will give you in a few words, as I have done before and has been done in this Debate, the reasons at home.
The moment that a question like this becomes a keen political question, you have the Irish situation over again. What was the position in regard to Ireland? From 1886 onwards, two political parties were lined up in opposition. It was a political question of the first water. I fought on it as a young man. The Liberals could not advance an inch towards us, and we could not advance an inch towards them. We fought and fought, until there was nothing left but husks to fight over, and we ended in 1021—an end that none of us wanted to see and that has made for few peoples happiness. I supported my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping at that time and I spoke in favour of the proposals. I believed that they were the only thing to be done. It was not an end that one of us 10 years, or even five years, before would have desired to see. What will happen here? Suppose we did not step forward, and suppose we had India in domestic politics as Ireland was, and
that you alternated between what is called firm rule and relaxation of authority; you would have chaos in India, and you would have a position before long that would make the holding of that country absolutely impossible. You would end in exactly the same way as you ended in Ireland. It is suggested that we might have had wiser leading at some time in our party on this matter. We may have waited till it was too late, as we did with regard to the Trades Dispute Act that helped to lose the 1906 election. I am not going to be too late this time. If I may say so to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot, what' ever faults I may commit, I am not going to adopt a policy of "missing the bus" every time.
I come to what I call the sentimental part of the speech by my hon. and gallant Friend. There was a very moving passage in his most interesting speech, in which he said what he remembered when he was a small boy. His whole vision of India is coloured by those memories. I call it a sentimental memory in the best sense of the word. What has been the history of India? In two words: We went there primarily for trade. Then we fought. Why did we fight? We fought, largely with the help of Indian soldiers now of one race and now of another. We fought where the local chiefs, or States, were fighting, not to conquer thorn, but to get peace, because fighting interfered with our trade. That was the sole idea which existed at the time. That was the first stage which brought us into India. We remember the great men the East India Company had. They were the men who kept the peace in India. Then there came some of the greatest administrators we had in India. It is interesting to remember that they did not visualise a, British Raj. They visualised an India which, ultimately, taught by ourselves, would stand on her own feet. Among these men were three: Munro, Mountstuart Elphinstone and John Malcolm. They are three of the biggest men that ever went out to India.
The India which the right hon. Gentleman remembers in his childhood, and the India I remember, was still developing. It was a time of gradual evolution. We have passed through that stage. My most sentimental recollections are of the country as I knew it as a child—the
country before there were motor cars on the country road, and nothing but horses. I remember when home was the centre of a circle with a 10 mile radius, and beyond that you could not go. That is what I would like to see come back, but it is passed and gone for ever. The period of paternal government of India has gone. It went nearly 20 years ago and it cannot come back. It is no good looking back on that and thinking that that is what we are throwing away to-day. We are throwing away nothing of the kind, for evolution has swept past. We are now in a period when, gradually, and by degrees, more and more responsibility is being put on Indians themselves. I sympathise with the sentimental attitude, but my head tells me it is not true to-day. All we have to look at is what is true to-day. We want a policy of realism and not a policy of sentiment. Those were some of the thoughts which passed through my mind.
I was glad to hear the tributes paid from every quarter in this House to my right hon. Friend and Lord Willingdon, the Viceroy. I am perfectly convinced, as has been said in some quarters of this House, although, I think, it would be denied in others, that by no means on earth could you have got improvement in India and a practical cessation of civil disobedience, had it not been that the firm policy of the Viceroy and the Secretary of State was accompanied by progress in preparing for constitutional reform in India. Without that you had constitutional reform, I doubt whether the trouble you had two or three years ago would not have been intensified from one end of India to the other. A great mistake is sometimes made. Hon. Members on the benches opposite would concede to those, who many of us call the more extreme parties in India, all they want. They believe on those benches that they really represent India.
In the same way, hon. Friends of mine who differ from the hon. Baronet believe that India consists of Congress and its supporters, and that all the rest of India consists of Princes and apathetic peasants. I do not think that that is a true conception. It must be remembered that it is always the extreme party that
is the first to form an organisation and to agitate. They have to do it from their nature. There are any number of political people in India, of Indians in the Services in India, who are as moderate-minded as we are ourselves, but they are less vocal than the extremists. It will be a profound disappointment to all who believe in these reforms if those elements, together with the others, do not make their weight and their counsel felt when responsibility is once thrown upon the shoulders of the Indians themselves.
The Joint Committee will be set up almost at once. Upon it will be laid, as has been said throughout the Debate, one of the gravest responsibilities that has ever been placed upon a body representing the two Houses of Parliament. The object of its work will be peculiarly appropriate to the Conservative party—rational, progressive reform. The Conservative, as I understand him, is no Junker and no Fascist. He is a man who believes in constitutional progress, who wants to serve his country, and who wants to see people contented and happy. There can be no better work for our party than to devote themselves to, and see what they can make of, this vast problem. There are countless materials with which to build the edifice. The architecture is left fairly free. It will tax the powers of our best, and of all our best. Let this work be taken in hand in a spirit conscious of the responsibility, and determined to do a piece of work for this country, for India, and for the Empire, which may, through times of doubt and difficulty, cement the bonds between us and lead to a real union. I know and realise as well as anyone the dangers and difficulties in the course we are pursuing. I should not be speaking honestly to the House if I did not say that in my view both dangers and difficulties lie ahead. But, convinced as I am of that, I am still more profoundly convinced that the difficulties and dangers that would be around us if we did not take this step would be infinitely greater.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 475; Noes, 42.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Glossop, C. W. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Christie, James Archibald
Gluckstein, Louis Halls


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Clarke, Frank
Goldie, Noel B.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Clarry, Reginald George
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Gower, sir Robert


Alexander, Sir William
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Granville, Edgar


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Graves, Marjorie


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Colman, N. C. D.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Apsley, Lord
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Greene, William P. C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Conant, R. J. E.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cook, Thomas A.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cooke, Douglas
Grimston, R. V.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Atholl, Duchess of
Copeland, Ida
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Atkinson, Cyril
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Cove, William G.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hales, Harold K.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craven-Ellis, William
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Balniel, Lord
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hammersley, Samuel S.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hanbury, Cecil


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bateman, A. L.
Cross, R. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crossley, A. C.
Harris, Sir Percy


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hartington, Marquess Of


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hartland, George A.


Beit, Sir Alfred L.
Curry, A. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Bernays, Robert
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Davison, Sir William Henry
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hepworth, Joseph


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbsy Division)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Denville, Alfred
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Despencer-Robertson Major J. A. F.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Borodale, Viscount
Dickie, John P.
Holdsworth, Herbert


Bossom, A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Boulton, W. W.
Doran, Edward
Hopkinson, Austin


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Drewe, Cedric
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hornby, Frank


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bracken, Brendan
Duggan, Hubert John
Horobln, Ian M.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Horsbrugh, Florence


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dunglass, Lord
Howard, Tom Forrest


Brass, Captain Sir William
Eady, George H.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Briant, Frank
Eales, John Frederick
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Eastwood, John Francis
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Broadbent, Colonel John
Eden, Robert Anthony
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hurd, Sir Percy


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C. (Berks.,Newb'y)
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Elmley, Viscount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Burghley, Lord
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Burnett, John George
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Janner, Barnett


Burton, Colonel Henry Waiter
Essenhigh, Reginald Glare
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Butler, Richard Austen
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Butt, Sir Alfred
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Falle Sir Bertram G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Fermoy, Lord
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Ker, J. Campbell


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Carver, Major William H.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Cassels, James Dale
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Kimball, Lawrence


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fox, Sir Gifford
Knebworth, Viscount


Castle Stewart, Earl
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Knight, Holford


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Law, Sir Alfred


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gibson, Charles Granville
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W)
Gillett, Sir George Masterman
Leckie, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Glimour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lees-Jones, John


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Gledhill, Gilbert
Leigh, Sir John




Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ormiston, Thomas
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Lewis, Oswald
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Liddall, Walter S.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Patrick, Colin M.
Smithers, Waldron


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Peake, Captain Osbert
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Pearson, William G.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Llewellin, Major John J.
Peat, Charles U.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Penny, Sir George
Soper, Richard


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Percy, Lord Eustace
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndswth)
Petherick, M.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Spens, William Patrick


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Pike, Cecil F.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Potter, John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Mabane, William
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stevenson, James


MacAndrew, Lieut. Col. C. G. (Partick)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Pybus, Percy John
Storey, Samuel


McCorquodale, M. S.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Strauss, Edward A.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stuart, Lord C, Crichton-


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Sugden, Sir Wilfrld Hart


McKeag, William
Rankin, Robert
Summersby, Charles H.


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tate, Mavis Constance


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ray, Sir William
Templeton, William P.


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rea, Walter Russell
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Thompson, Luke


Maitland, Adam
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Remer, John R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Martin, Thomas B.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Robinson, John Roland
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Meller, Richard James
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ross, Ronald D.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rothschild, James A. de
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Milne, Charles
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mitcheson, G. G.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Weymouth, Viscount


Moreing, Adrian C.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
White, Henry Graham


Morgan, Robert H.
Salt, Edward W.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Morrison, William Shsphard
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Most, Captain H. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Munro, Patrick
Scone, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Nail, Sir Joseph
Selley, Harry R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Womersley, Walter James


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


North, Captain Edward T.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Nunn, William
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


O'Connor, Terence James
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter O.



O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Margesson and Mr. Blindell.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Cape, Thomas
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur


Banfield, John William
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Groves, Thomas E.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, Thomas W.




Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Leonard, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Hicks, Ernest George
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hirst, George Henry
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Jenkins, Sir William
Milner, Major James
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Williams, Thomas (York. Don Valley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Owen, Major Goronwy
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Kirkwood, David
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, Gabriel

Main Question put,
That, before Parliament is asked to take a decision upon the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268, it is expedient that a Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons, with power to call into consultation representatives of the

Indian States and of British India, be appointed to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals in the said Command Paper.

The House divided: Ayes, 449; Noes, 43.

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[11.15 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir Francis Dyke
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Eastwood, John Francis


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Eden, Robert Anthony


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Albery, Irving James
Carver, Major William H.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson


Alexander, Sir William
Cassels, James Dale
Elmley, Viscount


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Castle Stewart, Earl
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Apsley, Lord
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Christie, James Archibald
Fade, Sir Bertram G.


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Clarke, Frank
Fermoy, Lord


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Clayton, Dr. George C.
Fleming, Edward Lascelles


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Cochrane, Commander Hon A. D.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Balniel, Lord
Colfox, Major William Philip
Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Colman, N. C. D.
Fox, Sir Gifford


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Bateman, A. L.
Conant, R. J. E.
Fuller, Captain A. G


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cook, Thomas A.
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Cooke, Douglas
Ganzoni, Sir John


Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Copeland, Ida
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Gibson, Charles Granville


Bernays, Robert
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gledhill, Gilbert


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Craven-Ellis, William
Glossop, C. W. H.


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Bird, Sir Hobert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Goldie, Noel B.


Borodale, Viscount
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Bossom, A. C.
Cross, R. H.
Gower, Sir Robert


Boulton, W. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Graves, Marjorie


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Curry, A. C.
Greene, William P. C.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)


Briant, Frank
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. S.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Davison, Sir William Henry
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Denman, Hon. R. O.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Denville, Alfred
Hales, Harold K.


Brown. Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Donner, P. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Doran, Edward
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Drewe, Cedric
Hanbury, Cecil


Burghley, Lord
Duckworth, George A. V.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Burnett, John George
Duggan, Hubert John
Harris, Sir Percy


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hartland, George A.


Butler, Richard Austen
Dunglass, Lord
Harvey Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Eady, George H.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Eales, John Frederick
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Hendenon, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Hepworth, Joseph
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Martin, Thomas B.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Salt, Edward W.


Hopkinson, Austin
Meller, Richard James
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Hornby, Frank
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Horobin, Ian M.
Milne, Charles
Savery, Samuel Servington


Horsbrugh, Florence
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Selley, Harry R.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Mitcheson, G. G.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Hurd, Sir Percy
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Hutchison, w. D. (Essex, Romf'd)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Smith, Sir Jonah W. (Barrow-In-F.)


Iveagh, Countess of
Moss, Captain H. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Munro, Patrick
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Nail, Sir Joseph
Smithers, Waldron


Janner, Barnett
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Somervell, Donald Bradley


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Johnston, J, W. (Clackmannan)
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Soper, Richard


Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
North, Captain Edward T.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Nunn, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Ker, J. Campbell
O'Connor, Terence James
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Spens, William Patrick


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Oman, Sir Charles William C
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Knebworth, Viscount
Ormiston, Thomas
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Knight, Holford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Owen, Major Goronwy
Stevenson, James


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Law, Sir Alfred
Patrick, Colin M.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Peaks, Captain Osbert
Storey, Samuel


Leckie, J. A.
Pearson, William G.
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Lees-Jones, John
Peat, Charles U.
Strauss, Edward A.


Leigh, Sir John
Penny, Sir George
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Percy, Lord Eustace
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Lewis, Oswald
Petherick, M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Liddall, Walter S.
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Summersby, Charles H.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Pike, Cecil F.
Tate, Mavis Constance


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Potter, John
Templeton, William P.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Power, Sir John Cecil
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thompson, Luke


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'ndsw'th)
Pybus, Percy John
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Lockwood, Capt. J. H. (Shipley)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Rankin, Robert
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Mabane, William
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ray, Sir William
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Rea, Walter Russell
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Seaham)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Renter, John R.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour-


McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Wells, Sydney Richard


McKeag, William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Weymouth, Viscount


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
White, Henry Graham


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Robinson, John Roland
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Rosbotham, Sir Samuel
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. Sir Ian
Ross, Ronald D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Magnay, Thomas
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Maitland, Adam
Rothschild, James A. de
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)




Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley



Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Worthington, Dr. John V.
Captain Margesson and Mr. Blindell


Womersley, Walter James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McEntee, Valentine L.


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
McGovern, John


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Buchanan, George
Hicks, Ernest George
Price, Gabriel


Cape, Thomas
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, William G.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Logan, David Gilbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. D. Graham and Mr. John.

Resolved,
That, before Parliament is asked to take a decision upon the proposals contained in Command Paper 4268, it is expedient that a Joint Select Committee of Lords and Commons, with power to call into consultation representatives of the Indian States and of British India, be appointed to consider the future government of India and, in particular, to examine and report upon the proposals in the said Command Paper."—[Sir S. Hoare.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACT.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the rural district of Torrington, in the county of Devon, which was presented on the 1st day of March, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Elec-
tricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of part of the borough of Walsall and part of the rural district of Walsall, in the county of Stafford, which was presented on the 2nd day of March, 1933, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1928, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, in respect of the administrative county of the Isle of Wight, which was presented on the 14th day of March, 1933, be approved." —[Lieut.-Colonel Headlam.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.